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.

What would Dakota Fanning Say?

To those in Hollywood to support Dakota Fanning and her family, what if the girls in the following article were helped into the industry by their family? Is there much difference between the way Holllywood gets Americans and girls all over the world hooked and this industry (if we take away the tinsel)?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/sex.workers/index.html

Money, Pleasure, Power

I really appreciate the comments that were posted yesterday. I would like to use today's entry to speak about the "theoretical lens" throught which I am operating. It is not Aristotle, but Plato. Aristotle is interested in classifying the mechanics of revolution. Plato is a nice introduction to Aristotle as Plato provides us with the psychology of revolution.

Plato recognized that the most formative part of a regime consisted of the leaders of the regime. The leaders are those who by their position and their character impress their way of life on the rest of society. The leaders do not necessarily do this by force of arms. They do it by example. They do it by breathing a spirit into the institutions and into the laws that in turn forms the souls of the men and women of a society. The leaders are not merely the political leaders. They are the men and women who make up the literary elite, the generals in the army, business leaders, the leaders of Hollywood, and journalists. Seen another way, the leaders are those who shape the univeristy, the news services, culture, music, business, the military, and politics. If we want to know the future of a society, all we have to do is study the souls of the leaders.

In Book VIII of the Republic Socrates outlines the character of each regime and how regimes progress, one to the next. Each regime can be understood according to the desire that dominates in that regime. To better help us understand each regime, he gives us the example of a family. In a honor-based family, the father tries to live in such a way that he never compromisos his honor. So, he resists committing injustices and doing anything that might compromise his dignity as a father and a leader of the family. Because he has this position, he does not always make the money that he could make. Also, he will sometime or many times in his life suffer injustice rather than commit one, apparently losing the respect of, or at least risking a lack of understanding from his wife and children

The wife of the honor based man, not out of malice and perhaps not always consciously, complains to her children that their family lacks things. At this moment, the seed of oligarchy is planted in the soul of the son of the honor-based man. The son becomes committed to making money so that he can buy the things his father never had and so that he can buy the respect and dignity his father did not get when his father suffered injustice. The son, rather than letting the desire for honor dominate in his soul, now turns his soul over to pursuing money. Thus, his soul becomes oligarchic.

The oligarch gives in to the passion of money-making in an unrestrained way. He also ends up living a fairly comfortable life. Now, the children of the oligarch, not at first out of malice and perhaps not fully conscious of what they are doing, look at their father and they say, “you have followed the passion for money-making in an unrestrained way. Why can we follow our other passions in an unrestrained way?” And so, the seed of democracy is planted in the souls of the children of the oligarch. These children start to explore and experience the pleasures of alcohol, the desire for procreation, to the point of becoming lotus eaters. They see that the best society would be a society that provides for equality, or that gives equal access to all the passions. The best society is one that is multi-colored. In this kind of society, or in a democracy, all the passions are given free reign. No one passion is regarded as different or better than any other passion.

Some of the children of the oligarch, though democrats when they are young, themselves become oligarchs when they are older. They want to buy honor and respect. Thus begins the war or competition between democracy and oligarchy. But this war over time favors the democrats. They have a much larger natural constituency, whereas the oligarchs greatest appeal is to the money makers. So, over time, the democratic passion takes hold of a society.

Now, among the passions, there is also the lust for cruelty and violence. And in a democratic society, that passion has equal access to the society along with all the other passions. Thus enters the demagogue. The demagogue or sophist knows how to appeal to the passions of men so as to gain power for himself. And so, in becoming elected, he can promise all sorts of things to the democrats which will appeal to their passions. In fact, one of the ways he gets elected is by promising the democrats that he will put an end to the oligarchs.

The ultimate demagogue is also a father killer. He will convince the democratic and oligarchic children that they have to kill their honor-loving father in order to be free from the rules or limits that he lives and that if they applied to their lives would make them suffer because it would require them to restrain their passions, whichever passion it is to which they currently let rule in their soul.

Once the demagogue comes to power, he starts killing off the group or groups that brought him to power. Do not forget, it is the desire for power that dominates in his soul. Eventually, he kills off the democrats, and the tyrant rules in a society. The poets, philosophers, musicians and other flatterers start to flatter the tyrant, because they depend on him now for their existence. One might say that democracy can also be tyrannical in this sense, poets and academics often end up flattering those who provide for their existence and subsistence.

This is the picture, or order of regimes, within which we can understand the progression of the French Revolution, as well as the contest that takes place between the democrats, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, and the oligarchs, such as Burke and Adams. It is also a nice way of beginning to understand what is the paradigm of modern politics, the struggle between the conservatives (oligarchs) and democrats. Neither side is fullly attached to reason and logos, and so they are immersed in a struggle between falsehoods.

Agents of Influence in Poland and the US

Departing somewhat from recent entries, it would be good to review the current dilemma that Poland faces, in order to compare it to our own. If one were to read the article from the New York Times Saturday, January 6th, it seems that a young philosophy student in 1967 was recruited by the secret police to spy on Polish Catholics at a Catholic University.

Here is the link:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/world/europe/06poland.html?em&ex=1168232400&en=f62f8fd3ced788da&ei=5087%0A

The idea of travel was attractive to him. It would allow him to do research and meet people at other universities. Eventually, he continued collaborating with the communists because “At the time I thought I had to continue my important scientific research and acquire sound training for the good of the church.” This led to a long-term relationship. Friday the 5th, the Archbishop admitted publicly that he had, in fact, collaborated with the communist regime in keeping tabs on his fellow Catholics.

Sunday, January 7th, this Archbishop resigned. He had compromised with an anti-catholic regime, and that made him unfit to become a ruler of the Church. The Polish Church established clear guide-lines during the Soviet Era to protect from this kind of compromise. For example, no person was supposed to go alone into a room with someone from the communist secret service. If someone were alone in a room with the secret service, he should have written to his Ecclesiastical superiors about it immediately. The young priest did not follow these guidelines of prudence.

The purpose of this entry is not to ask or answer the question about what the Archbishop or the Vatican should do, instead, it is to encourage some self-reflection on our own part.

We are not living in a communist country, but doesn't the same thing happen to us? There is a War Party in this country that works through foundations to recruit Catholic students to support its cause. These students can end up ousting other students who fail to share the views of the War Party. These students who want to go on and do research or get positions of influence to help the Church will make concessions with their faith in the interests of perhaps later on helping the Church.

There are also pro-Abortionists, who also want to recruit students for their cause. These students also, in the interest of future influence, could adopt the pro-abortionist, or pro-stem cell research line, in the interest of "the good of the Church."

There are agents promoting the homosexual marriage who come to the University in the interest of supporting their cause. Students in one way or another can take the money to become attached to these groups "for the good of the Church."

Communism is an ideology. The War Party runs on an ideology. The abortion movement runs on an ideology. The homosexual movement is an ideology. They all will attempt to infiltrate the Church, to get the Church to bend to their doctrine. There are some from within the ideology who consciously do this. There are others, who in the interest of promoting "the good of the Church" will go along with the ideology in a half-hearted way, not wanting to lose their faith, and not wanting the ideology to win out in the end either. They think that, in doing so, they will keep both alive.

This is the dilemma of dealing with revolutionary ideologies. Modern secularism is a revolutionary ideology. The forms in which it appears in the US are capitalism, sexual liberation, and Empire. As we follow the way in which a Polish student made a compromise as a student with the ideology of communism, let us beware about the compromises that we could make as young people that would lead us to compromise with the other false ideologies of our age.