In a free society, differences of political sentiment result in different political parties. These sentiments resolve themselves naturally into two basic parties: the authoritarian (or monarchist, tory, etc.) that favors government that controls the people, and the democratic (or republican, liberal, etc.) that favors government controlled by the people. The body of the nation chooses a path that is mapped by one or the other of these parties.
This basic sentiment you will see repeated several times. Jefferson, author of The Declaration of Independence and our third President, has a clear idea that by nature some human beings are monarchists/authoritarians and want the government to control a people they don't trust; others are liberal in nature, and thus inclined to republics in which the people exercise control over the powers of government. It is immediately obvious where our current parties fall on this dichotomy.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1802. ME 10:310
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492
"Nature has made some men monarchists and tories by their constitution, and some, of course, there always will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:135
There is a great deal more of this at the link. What is of greater immediate interest is whether or not political parties are justified given the problems that they have. Jefferson felt, obviously given his actions, that they clearly were. He explains his position thusly:
"The denunciation of the democratic societies, [whose avowed object is the nourishment of the republican principles of our Constitution,] is one of the extraordinary acts of boldness of which we have seen so many from the faction of monocrats,... [and is] an attack on the freedom of discussion, the freedom of writing, printing and publishing." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1794. ME 9:293
He might also have added the freedom of association: what right has the government to forbid us from forming a society with common values, to pursue common ends?
Nevertheless, he does have some proposed limits:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317
There is good reason to suppose that the contemporary parties fall afoul of both of these limits. Nevertheless, his basic point remains: how dare the government tell us we cannot organize to pursue the moral ends that our natures incline us to view as right and proper? Given his assumptions about the proper foundation of governmental authority in the Declaration, one might say that a government founded on those principles has no standing whatever so to dare.
I brought up the topic of Washington's opinion of parties in the comments recently in remarks on our current problems and there were quibbles. I think, though, that I had his opinion right and that it is indeed relevant to our circumstances today. As evidence, I offer pages 11-14 of Washington's 1796 "Farewell Address":
... The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force—to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true— and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.
My opinion is that the development of political parties eviscerated a good deal of the checks and balances that were supposed to safeguard our republic. If one party impeaches and removes judges or officials of the other, revenge is likely to follow, so neither employs the main Constitutional method for keeping the judiciary and executive branches in check and both get away with all sorts of nonsense. The fact that they are pragmatically good ways to organize political movements explains them but does not justify them.
Hegseth hosted the Third Infantry Regiment, also known as The Old Guard, to the Pentagon “where he proudly awarded Specialist Iglesias the Joint Service Commendation Medal for the execution of his duties at the Tomb of the unknown Soldier on November 11, 2026,” a Pentagon official told 6 Action News.Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said Iglesias “correctly and respectfully reminded everyone to maintain decorum.”
Discipline is the soul of the army.
Nussbaum argues that disgust has long been among the fundamental motivations of those who are fighting for legal discrimination against lesbian and gay citizens. When confronted with same-sex acts and relationships, she writes, they experience "a deep aversion akin to that inspired by bodily wastes, slimy insects, and spoiled food--and then cite that very reaction to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same-sex marriage." Leon Kass, former head of President Bush's President's Council on Bioethics, even argues that this repugnance has an inherent "wisdom," steering us away from destructive choices. Nussbaum believes that the politics of disgust must be confronted directly, for it contradicts the basic principle of the equality of all citizens under the law. "It says that the mere fact that you happen to make me want to vomit is reason enough for me to treat you as a social pariah, denying you some of your most basic entitlements as a citizen." In its place she offers a "politics of humanity," based not merely on respect, but something akin to love, an uplifting imaginative engagement with others, an active effort to see the world from their perspectives, as fellow human beings. Combining rigorous analysis of the leading constitutional cases with philosophical reflection about underlying concepts of privacy, respect, discrimination, and liberty, Nussbaum discusses issues ranging from non-discrimination and same-sex marriage to "public sex." Recent landmark decisions suggest that the views of state and federal courts are shifting toward a humanity-centered vision, and Nussbaum's powerful arguments will undoubtedly advance that cause.
Mood Music
Stan Rogers gives us a good example of Stoicism ...
... and a bad example of Stoicism.
I recently decided to read Grim's commentary on Epictetus's Enchiridion. I was quite busy with other things when he went through it. I only intend to post about this when I have something to say that's different from what Grim and the discussion in the post comments do, so I'm not sure how many posts on this I'll make.
The Enchiridion begins with some shocking claims. The first two paragraphs of the first chapter are:
There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own. Beyond our power are body, property, reputation, office, and, in one word, whatever are not properly our own affairs.
Now the things within our power are by nature free, unrestricted, unhindered; but those beyond our power are weak, dependent, restricted, alien. Remember, then, that if you attribute freedom to things by nature dependent and take what belongs to others for your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you take for your own only that which is your own and view what belongs to others just as it really is, then no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you; you will find fault with no one, you will accuse no one, you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm.
That final sentence is quite radical. It may sound simple: Mind your own business and you'll be free. However, Epictetus puts the body beyond our powers; the body is alien, in his terms. Bluntly, your body is not only not your own, it's not even your business. Your property, too, is not your own or your business. "Mind your own business" takes on quite a different meaning here than I'm used to.
Epictetus was born a slave and so it was true that his body belonged to someone else, at least until he was freed, but he is saying his body wasn't his own even as a free man. Considering this, when he claims that if you consider your body beyond your power and therefore your concern, his claim that "no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you ... you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm" makes sense. Even if you are enslaved, maimed or killed, your body is not your own, so no one has compelled, restricted, or harmed you. That is great freedom, I suppose.
This runs counter to what I think have been the normal American assumptions that our bodies and property are in fact our own. Whole branches of law would collapse if that suddenly changed. It also goes against what I take to be the Christian view that a human is a body and a soul. We are both; this is why were were created immortal and why we will have a bodily resurrection and embodied immortality, and also why Jesus was fully human as well as fully God.
On the other hand, we can think that God gave us our bodies, so they properly belong to Him. Still, if that is so, then it would also seem that our entire existence, including "opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own" also belong to Him. Maybe that is where free will comes into play; we have these things as a free gift and it is our choice to align them with His will or not. Epictetus seems to align more with Christianity than American values. Although he wasn't a Christian, both he and Christianity are ancient, so it makes sense they'd have more in common than either would with modernity.
All that said, for most or maybe all of us, don't others have some claim on our bodies? We don't think of it that way I suppose, but those we are in close relationships with, or our communities, for example, make claims on us and we meet those claims with our bodies. If my elderly mentor needs a ride to the hospital, then I will use my body to drive him there. Or, if a young man is drafted for war, he must respond with his body or face bodily consequences for refusing. We tend think ill of a parent who abandons his or her children to pursue selfish passions. Maybe our bodies aren't our own.
Well, with a first chapter like this, the book should be quite enlightening. I look forward to seeing where it goes and reading the commentary and comments as I go.
