On Vacation

Joe will be in Rome until April 10th.

Trotsky Versus Stalin in America

Below is a letter to the editor to the Washington Post and a few links to some articles on neo-conservatism.

Based on these letters and links, our country is entering into a bizarre stage in which we might see ourselves watching ideological conflicts similar to those that went in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand, we have the Troskyite neo-cons, who want to spread democratic revolution throughout the world. On the other hand, within the US itself, we have the anti-war movement being led by Stalinists, who do not want a world revolution right away, but they want to use the war and the protest against it to plunge the United States into a communist republic. Then, there are also signs of fascism emerging among the conservative materialists. In short, we have the three political ideologies that develop from materialisms, leading to an inner fight among themselves. Ironically, stalinism, trotskyism, and fascism, in the end, are all ideologies of the left!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10734

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/national_socialism_and_national_greatness

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:

Dear Editor:

Your paper's coverage of the so-called "anti-Iraq protest movement"
seriously failed to identify both the groups involved in leading the
demonstration on March 17th, but also failed to identify its leaders
whose names either appeared in the WP or on their press releases and
websites.

Brian Becker, identified as "national coordinator for the Answer
Coalition" is not identified as a longtime member and leader of the
Stalinist "Workers World Party", perhaps the top communist party in the
US today. The same goes for other ANSWER spokespersons (over time)
including Richard Becker, Steve Hackwell, Leslie Feinberg, Monica
Moorehead, Sara Flounders, John Catalinotto, etc. Many of these
individuals were identified as members of the WWP as far back at April
1974 in the report "The Workers World Party and Its Front
Organizations", House Internal Security Committee (HISC) and in an
earlier hearing, "Revolutionary Activities Directed Toward the
Administration of Penal or Correctional Systems, Part 1", March/May,
1973. Thus WP writer Brigid Schulte's writing in "Veterans, Others
Denounce Marchers", March 18th, got the chant "Workers World traitors
must hang!" wrong. It was not "a reference to the Communist newspaper",
i.e. "Workers World." It was a reference to the WWP as the sponsoring
organization of the demonstration, along with a mixed Communist/Maoist
coalition.known as United for Peace & Justice, led by an old Communist
Party USA-connect activist, Leslie Cagan, and Revolutionary Communist
Party leader, the aging Carl Davidson.

Democrats and War

I have been saying for some time now that the Democrats, while they might be critical of the way Bush has carried out the war in Iraq, are not against going to war or bombing Iran, even if this turns out to be unjust and reckless.

Here is an article that says the same thing:

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/nyt3_27_7.htm

We should not think that the efforts of Democrats to oppose Bush in Iraq actually has any substance. It is an effort to appease and trick their antiwar constituency.

Unfortunately, both sides, Democrats and Republicans, are united in setting out to bomb Iran.

Perpetual War and American Foreign Policy

Apparently, President Bush had a luncheon on February 28th. A number of historians and political thinkers attended this luncheon who have held publically that life is perpetual war.

The same day I read this news, I picked up Plato's Laws. Much to my surprise, the Laws begins with a discussion the Island of Crete (the cradle of Greek culture) and the speaker representing Crete, Kleinias, praises Cretan society because it was organized for perpetual war. Life, he tells us, is perpetual stuggle of man against himself, man against man, neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, and nationa against nation.

Socrates begins to critique this view by suggesting that, while a certain kind of struggle as well as war may be a part of life, we do not live life for the purpose of fighing perpetual wars. Ultimately, if we fight wars we fight them so that we can return to a peaceful life in which people can pursue happiness. He also indicates that the purpose of war should not be to pursue unlimited freedom, or to spread freedom everywhere. This, he suggests, is the formula for a bloodthirsty empire. While complete limitations on freedom are unsatisfactory, the just society harmonizes the concern for peace, the desire for freedom, and the limits necessary so that these desires do not lead the society to become unjust towards others and unjust towards itself.

Some things never change.

A Revoir to the Lords

Yesterday, in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

England is considering subjecting the House of Lords to elections. From the standpoint of our research over the last month, this is the institution that Adams thought was essential to a balance of powers in the UK, along with the monarch. If England makes the House of Lords based on election, will it mean that the ideals of the French Revolution have overtaken England, in the end? Was the opposition of Adams for nothing?

Physics and History

From Sunday's New York Times Magazine (3/11/07): an article on developments in astronomy. It looks like our physicists are saying that in addition to black matter, there is something called black energy. It is not observable through any of the five senses, and yet we know it through its effects. It looks like physics is finally catching up with the principles of aether, as laid out by Plato,... to Aquinas. How Medieval! Maybe now we can celebrate things that are medieval rather than always decrying them. Physics, like history, can be a matter of using concepts to explain facts, sometimes knowing that the concepts, like gravity, might have many problems to their use.

Also, a book review by Tony Judt on the history of the 20th century. This particular book tried to incorporate the Church into history. In Judt's eyes, the particular historian comes off as snide, and perhaps hiding some of the facts. For example, Judt points out that some German Bishops might have been more complicit than others in Germany. Of course, Judt himself does not mention the Archbishop of Muenster, who spoke out openly and against the Nazis before, during, and after the war. My point, instead of hiding facts or being snide, we should attempt to state the facts as they were. So, at least as far as the spirit of the issue, Judt is right. If a Bishop capitulated with the Nazis or the Commies, it is a fact that we should establish or not. At the same time, one Bishop or group of Bishops acting one way or another is not necessarily an indictment on all religion.

A Thought on Politics

A student asked the question today, what is the best political system or the best party right now?

Here is my answer: In some ways, the Green Party gets it right, in ways that are similar to those who have been outcast from the Republic Party in the last 15 years. We should have a country that respects ecology. Ecology, though, includes human ecology or harmonizing society such that all humans benefit from all human advances, economic, science, cultural, educational, and technical. Society as a whole should think this through. We should oppose economic and military adventurism, that crushes the poorest and least fortunate, and that leads us to commit all kinds of injustices against our own citizens and others.

At the same time, the most stable kind of constitution over time is one that recognizes the executive, aristocratic, and democratic element in society, gives them a role in law-making and office sharing, and limits each of their roles. This is the value of the constitution of the United States.

However, the great danger is that the wealthy class take over. By insinuating itself into these institutions in an unjust way, the wealthy class tend to turn the society into an oligarchy, setting up the clash between oligarchy and democracy, the corruption of morals, and the destruction of the family. Once the family is destroyed, the children will look to comfortable lives (oligarchy), the military, or pleasure (democracy) as their options. This will lead to the overall degeneration of society, the rise of an Empire, or the rise of an authoritarian or totalitarian state.

In an odd way, the current favortie platforms of the Republicans and the democrats, and an unfortunate aspect of the Green Party, work well in the logic of Empire. The abortion and sexual revolutionary policies of the democrats tend to undermine the family. This makes the children less civilized and ultimately thirsting for military vengeance, a comfortable life, and some sort of order. The economic politics of the Republicans tend to weaken the family by forcing them to move around to keep the free market economy going. It also tends to rely on the military and foreign advernturism, which, over time, weakens the family under the false mask of promoting social order and security. Times of wars tend to introduce more sexual misbehavior and break up families. So, the sexual politics of the democrats and the Greens work "nicely" with the economic and foreign affairs of the neo-cons in the Republican Party for building an empire over time.

If we could adopt the constitutionalism, foreign and moral policies of the conservatives, with the "sense" of the common good of the democrats, and the "ecology" of the Greens, we would have perhaps, the formula for a "Catholic" party in the US.

Conservatism and Sexual Revolution

Previous comments from previous posts, which are very insightful, have led me to take a second look at an aspect of Adams's biography, his arrival to France for the first time as a diplomat.

The biographer, Shaw, explains that Adams was struck by how forthright a bourgeois French lady was about physical intimacy. He also described certain delights that took place in the theater.

What Shaw indicates, is that Adams was ambiguous about this situation. He describes in his letters how much he delighted in these situations. He never seemed to fully repent of them, though, he did not like what he saw in the libertine behavior of Franklin in Paris.

At the same time, he never seemed to speak of in his letters the moral decadence of France leading up to the Revolution. Voltaire and his associates were clearly engaged in a campaign to subvert French morals. The story of Adams on his arrival to France seems to indicate that Adams was ambiguous about France. He did not seem to identify this as part of the problem leading up to the French Revolution. He saw it more as one that involved a lack of knowledge about political institutions.

Is there a blindness here? In other letters, Adams seems aware of the need for a moral order to uphold any constitution. Though, he does not seem to be concerned about the ambiguous at best moral order in France on his arrival. In his critiques of the revolution, he tends to emphasize more the political failings, not the failings of the moral life of France.

Progressivism and the French Revolution

I have before me a book titled "The Progressive Revolution." I have not read it yet, but just the back cover tells us that the dichotomy that was set up during the french revolution persists in the US to this day. The book says that it want to examine the revolution known as progressivism. IT opposes itself to this revolution. The counterrevolution is a return to natural rights, limited government, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. The revolution is committed to progressivism, centralization, unlimited government, and direct democracy.

This mirrors the general positions leading up to and during the French Revolution. John Adams saw himself on the side of the Anglomanes, who advocated bicameralism and constitutional checks and balances. Jefferson saw himself more on the side of the Gallomanes, who advocated a national, unified, central legislature as the center of power.

These debates persist.

Rival Political Scientists: Adams and Condorcet

In 1787 and 1788, Condorcet and Adams would prove themselves to be rivals in attempting to influence the overall orientation of the coming revolution. One author has identified them as two Newtonian physicists arguing over the best way to turn government into a science. Condorcet used the method of strict mathematics. Adams employed weights and measures. Condorcet sought to replace history and philosophy with the science of enlightenment. Adams thought that history and philosophy led man to the science of enlightenment. Condorcet, along with Turgot, took one powerful national legislature to be the ideal form of government to replace a powerful king. Adams thought such a legislature would be given over too readily to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. Better, he thought, to grant something like a senate or house of lords to the powerful and wealthy, so that their influence could be felt and then checked (Thompson, 368-375).