Of a Time
“Because, that is just the way it is,” we are told. The ‘way it is’, for sure, but that doesn’t mean that it is how it should be. Or, we hear, “Because, that is the way it has always been.” It’s too late to change the ‘always has been’ part, but just because we have always done something a certain way doesn’t mean that is how it should be done. The proper response to both of the two axioms is, “How should it be?” A third reason/axiom often proffered is, “That is how it is supposed to be.” For this one; “Says who?”
Economics and politics are history’s leading characters. The three, economics, politics, and history, are inextricably linked. Given that politics is the art or science of government; the ‘politics’ character sometimes goes by the name, ‘government’.
A government is the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization. In its more primitive forms, this body of persons may include representatives of the army and the church to varying extents. In true democracies, this body is made up of representatives elected by the people; excludes the army and the church.
Good governance implies good economics. It is hard to imagine that a good government could exist very long without a good economic model. We do see bad governments resort to force in order to sustain or impose a bad economic model. Sometimes we see a bad authoritarian government coupled with a good or decent economic model.
Given that politics is defined as the art or science of government, and that government is defined as being the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization; let us first ask, “what should a good government do, and not do?” Government has evolved, so has its role. Today, a good government would provide its citizens economic and personal security including fair and equitable access to certain public goods and services. These goods and services include access to education, healthcare, affordable housing, etc. A good government would not deny individual rights unless the exercising thereof infringed on the rights of others. A good government is a government that does those things it should do, and not those it shouldn’t.
What should a good economy do? A good economy would efficiently produce and equitably distribute the requisite goods for a society whilst all the while giving utmost consideration to human welfare and to the protection of the natural environment.
It does seem more than passingly strange that in this an era of great innovation we too seldom hear, “What should an economy do?” or “What should the government do?”. We do often hear, “This is the way it has always been.”, “That is just the way it is.”, and “That is how it is supposed to be.” This, when innovation is all about asking, “How should it be.” We have not come this far by doing things the way we have always done them.
To “that’s the way it is” I would add “you can’t fight city hall” but it seems that every year there is some inspiring story of a fairly ordinary person starting a campaign that does change something the government does. The last big one I can think of is MADD and their anti-drunk driving campaign that resulted in changes in laws and enforcement of drunk driving. We didn’t used to have vehicular manslaughter as a crime. Alcohol related deaths are down about 35% in as many years, even with the increase in the number of drivers.
Today’s Republican party reminds me of:
Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
Ken
Enjoyed the read. I know of Cromwell. Never really read much of him. Was too interested in the Hapsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire at the time up till WWI
yes, of course. but if it has always been so, it might be worthwhile to consider why.
as for Cromwell, how did that go?
yuor right to swing your fist might stop at my nose, but you may ask why, then, am i sticking my nose in your business?
Was, ” how should be,” being asked?
Ken
i think it was. somehow they couldn’t agree.
Ken, It’s a difficult time trying to make sense out of the madness. Here’s a nice read that will help put current events into a bit of perspective.
From an article, “How to Build a New Political Party” by Frank J. DiStefano, July 21, 2021.
JP McJ,
Exactly.
JP
true enough i suppose, but not a very good start to doing someting about it.
Coberly,
I will have to read the article on what to do about it later. Whether to start again from whole cloth or stage a political coup to takeover an existing party from its establishment elites, then the start would be organizing an activist movement for those ends. The necessary critical mass to power such a movement has eluded me for over fifty years. In any case that is the hard part. Those that have the means are generally too comfortable with the status quo to take the leap. Those that have the necessary discomfort form in-groups too narrow to fit the critical mass needs. Been stuck here since 1968.
Sound like about where I am stuck. Didn’t realize how stuck I am until a few years ago. Thats why I have given up earnest explanation in favor of bitter irony.
My guess is that people need a leader. Last one we had was FDR, unless you count the unlikely LBJ who did something about civil rights and poverty and lost it all by going to Vietnam. I am not the leader type myself.
God help us that when the people find a leader it turns out to be Trump.
Ron & Coberly,
I’m stuck too… have been for quite awhile… That’s why I offered the article. It helped me a bit to begin to put this current mess into some kink of context…
It’s a long article so here are few excerpts if you don’t have the time or need encouragement to read the whole thing…
I’m pretty sure we’re nearing the collapse, so maybe hope and something better is not too far away. Maybe we’ll even live to see it!!
JP
it is easy enough to fall in love with a person or essay that confirms one’s own beliefs and hopes. but since it does take faith, I should be the last person to cast doubts on anyone’s emerging faith.
the article you cite and quote from (thank you very much for both) is more optimistic than i am. today’s problems are dire..i think more ominous than any i have seen over the last seventy years, though i thought those were quite dire in their time. Mostly, we seem to have a well organized, well funded, even intelligent after its own fashion, assault on democracy itself [however limited that democracy may have been, it preserved certain expectations that did lead to progress over time]. to wit: we have a supreme court supermajority that does not care about “law” as much about advanicng it’s own agenda…that of the very rich would-be oligarchy. We have a Senate and House dominated by a majority of adherents to that same agenda…including some pseudo Democrat spoilers. We half half the population thinking it agrees with the program of those oligarchs..as long as they believe that program promises them revenge over the people they have bed led to hate..really since before the Civil War.
I am not sure what is left of our Democracy is up to the challenge. Neither do I think that that challenge will be met by gradual absobion of decency-based policy ideas by the people. we have already tried that and it has brought us to here. Some progress to be sure, but progress that has aroused the Enemy to fight it with all of it’s heart and all of its mind and all of its money.
as always, sorry for the typos. hope you guess what i meant. too hard to go back and change them now.
Coberly,
I’ll check out your link. I really don’t think we’re that far apart in our doom and gloom… Cheers & have a good day!
JP
okay. let me know what you think. i think where McWhorter fals down is that he does not say clearly who is going to do this…do what he says needs to be done, specifically how to go about it. I think that whatever degree of pessismism we suffer, we are not allowed to give in to despair. we must fight, now, whatever we think the odds against us are. but so far I don’t have a plan either.
Thanks for the link J.P.
I think Heather Cox Richardson is the best. Her today’s broadens it all out a bit
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-17-2022?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDczNzc3NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTIzOTM5NjEsIl8iOiJ1RGhmVSIsImlhdCI6MTY1MDI5MDM3NywiZXhwIjoxNjUwMjkzOTc3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjA1MzMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.s7QF2k3MR2Zlnh_–cP1UrcyWjg7_qH6yQxJxxp98Gk&s=r
There is more to democracy than the free will to chose leadership either by a coven of Machiavellian technocrats or a Nietzschean strong man, neither of which is democratic and neither of which has either the authority or the competency to endure the change of progress.
Coberly, I think we’re in near total agreement on the current dire state of things and I think you would agree — near total collapse. I would add to your list of dumbfounding realities, a DOJ/AG that is too late to the fight and, along with SCOTUS, has seriously weakened the benchmark “rule of law”.
We might disagree on the definition of “optimistic”. In my close political circles I’m known as “Mr. Doom and Gloom” and “glass half empathy.” You say the article and I guess me (based on the love comment) might be too optimistic.
Maybe, perhaps? But the article is talking about rebuilding from the wreckage of a cycle of destruction following a failure and collapse where the government stagnates and corruption starts creeping into the system.
I have given up on thinking the existing system can self correct so the only alternative is to watch it crash and burn and rebuild from the wreckage. Is that optimistic?
JP
optimistic? i’m afraid it is. don’t take my disagreement too seriously…at least not the disgreement part. or even the non-optimistic part. i am not optimistic because i don’t think an after-the-fall answer will work, i am afraid there may be no after the fall this time. in any case the people will not repair the world unless they have a leader of vision and decency, which are not all that common in history. nor is there likely to be time before the fall for we the people to stop it.
corruption has always been a part of government…and i have like to say i never minded a little honest corruption: i don’t care if the mayor gives his friend the contract to pave main street. but we are looking at a corruption these days which is aimed at destroying democracy, if not the world and all possibility of human happiness itself.
but i hope i am wrong, and if you have a plan or a hope i don’t want my disagreement or pessimism to stand in your way.
apr0pos of which, here is a link to a guy with a plan i agree with…but have no hope for….for part of the disease. (if i can make the link work): [actually, I’ll post this comment first so i don’t lose it while looking for the link.]
JP
here is the link. it may be a little long, but it gets to a point and a program before the end. it’s something i have been advocating on AB for a while to no apparent interest. but here it is being said by someone with established credibility.
Re Heathre Cox Richardson
First: the politicians who call for “christian values” are liars calling for ant-christian values. they and the “christian” leaders they are in league with are turning “christianity” into that old pagan religion.
Second: this may not matter much, as if they are going to call themselves christian, this is what everyone is going to call them, that is definitely part of their plan.
Third: i don’t think suppressing “wokism” is the..or even an…answer. i do think wokism, as i have encounterd it, definitely plays into the hands of the Enemy..the enemy both of black people, and of people in general, and of the message that Christ preached…whether or not he was the son of god, or even existed: the message is still there.
Heather Cox Richardson goes too quickly from the democracy invented by the Founders to pointing out they did not live by those democratic principles. This, I am afraid, is wokism. The Founders, many of them or most of them, did their best according to the lights of their time…and their best was shining the light brighter to all the world.
A time will come, I hope a time will come, when we, ourselves, will look back on our own sins and recognize them as steps on the way.
Just as Newton “stood on the shoulders of giants,” Lincoln did not come to “all men are created equal” without help from Jefferson. [and yes, I have read people who think Lincoln was just another racist politician…]
I included a link to someone who agrees with me in a reply to J.P.McJefferson below, It seems to have disappeared. Should I be paranoid?
oops
there it is above. interview with John McWhorter.
Jonathan Haidt on Amanpour w/ Hari Sreenivasan
in re his Uniquely Stupid article in The Atlantic
Damn you, I will have to go read it now.
I find it strange that Brits usually seem to loath Oliver Cromwell and their one shot at having a Republic, almost as much as Guy Fawkes for trying to blow up Parliament. (‘Anarchism is just baaaad.’) We are more tolerant of Cromwell because of our Plimouth Pilgrim connections.
Our Pilgrims date back to the Cromwell period in England, although the Pilgrims were not of exactly the same ‘Separatist’ tradition as Cromwell.
On a different note…
Charles Darwin’s enduring hold on us
Boston Globe – April 16
The 17th century was a period of great disruption in England, and the fact that their American colonies were greatly neglected during that period led to our Independence was almost inevitable.
Fred,
Thanks. Chucky D was a great and brilliant man, probably not much understood precisely because he was a great and brilliant man, which has always been a rare breed. Charles Darwin was not an atheist, but rather was a Unitarian, a distinction without a difference to many although something that I can completely understand and accept.
ron
well, as my daughter, a passionate (and professional) darwinist, points out Darwin was a minister of the church…or someting like that. i may be something of a unitarian myself, and i like to point out it’s the anti-darwin fanatics who are atheists. they put limits on what god can do. apparently their god is too stupid to invent evolution. on the other hand as far as i can tell Jesus did not concern himself with such matters. he had more important things to talk about. and since he knew no one would understand him he left those things a little vague…as in: it’s up to you to decide what you value, but your decisions have consequences…not that god punishes sin, but that some things are of their own nature harmful [don’t jump off the temple tower].
and “sciencists” who argue with anti-evolutionists are practicing bad science (science has nothing to say about “religion.”) just as anti-evolutionists are practicing bad religion: religion is about more important things than evolution. [or other people’s morality] or, as a good person i once knew who called himself a christian pointed out “christianity has nothing to do with religion.”
hell, even spell check won’t let me write “sciencist”. how far we have fallen.
Coberly,
Yes sir – exactly.