The world court
When is it appropriate for American courts to reference foreign law?
The other day Jake posted on the Supreme Court ruling that teenagers cannot be sentenced to life in prison for non-homicide crimes. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy referenced the consensus in the international community against such punishments:
There is support for our conclusion in the fact that, in continuing to impose life without parole sentences on juveniles who did not commit homicide, the United States adheres to a sentencing practice rejected the world over.
In other recent decisions outlawing the death penalty for juveniles and overturning laws prohibiting sodomy the court has also referenced international law. These cases raise an interesting question, what role, if any, should the opinions of foreign nations play in our constitutional interpretation? Read more
Conservatism ctd.: responses to Freeden
Jake,
Thanks for continuing your examination into the origins and current meaning of American conservatism. I look forward to hearing your own perspective in the future. In your last post, you outlined Michael Freeden’s definition of conservatism as 1) commitment to organic progress and 2) belief in the extra-human origins of society. While I know you have not endorsed Freeden’s perspective, I wanted to offer a few critiques to his argument.
Focusing on the second factor, I wonder how “conservative” the natural order of society ends up. Marx’s argument was not necessarily that political institutions should institute a radical change in their social order; rather, Marx argued that the natural order of society pointed inevitably towards the collapse of capitalism and the institution of common ownership over the means of production.
Certainly Freeden would disagree with Marx’ analysis, but that’s exactly my point. There’s strong debate over the proper definition of “natural orders,” and no guarantee that an analysis of that order will suggest traditional conservative policy goals.
Focusing on Freeden’s first factor, the commitment to natural evolution of policy seems questionable when faced with contemporary problems. Climate change, for example, demands radically new methods of market regulation and social organization. While the gradual destruction of the environment would eventually make “organic” change inevitable, climate science reminds us that once the costs of climate change are apparent, it will already be too late to act. Modern science can point to radically new needs and solutions that Burke could not possibly have anticipated. While organic change may generally be good policy, the exceptions that must be made are both urgent and radical. Perhaps this is why the modern American conservative movement has sought to deny climate change science.
Finally, I wanted to discuss the underpinnings of your project as a whole. Are the goals of this project to define a forward direction for American conservatism? If so, is the project bound solely on finding the most beneficial path forward from a normative perspective? Should our definition of conservatism include questions of political expediency? By this, I mean if we establish Oakeshottian conservatism as the normative ideal, who would vote for it? Certainly not the religious right. Would normatively coherent conservatism require a third party?
-John
The David Brooks manual of style
Chait has an excellent post unpacking the Platonic ideal of a David Brooks column. It might have readers nodding along.
It begins with an interesting little sociological ditty:
When reading this, you were probably wondering to yourself, How is this going to lead to the reluctant conclusion the Democrats are wrong? Don’t worry, Brooks has a bridge:
See where this is headed? No? Here you go:
While I tend to give Brooks more credence than does Chait on substance, one has to admit he has his formulas.
-John
Long lost Descartes letter found
Less public, more philosopher…
-Jake
Survey data permanently settles philosophical question
In news from the emerging field of happiness research, a recent study shows a strong correlation between material goods and objective factors (like high levels of sunlight in a given geography) and subjective ratings of happiness. (The link is to a methodological objection to the study itself, which as a purely qualitative public philosopher I’m not qualified to adjudicate).
I should say that I always find it odd when studies of this nature begin with “philosophers have debated since ancient times…”, as if the interesting philosophical debate revolves around positive survey data rather than normative judgments of what happiness should mean.
But come on, even Seneca would have bowed to materialism if he had seen the new iPad, right??
-John
Chambers and Trilling
At TNR.com, Damon Linklater writes an interesting review of Michael Kimmage’s book on Whitaker Chambers and Lionel Trilling, two thinkers whose mid-20th Century rejection of their early communism influenced the current American ideological marketplace. Linklater writes:
Until the mid-1950s, American conservatism was less a coherent ideology than an irritably reactionary mood: reflexively hostile to the federal government, staunchly isolationist, explicitly anti-modern, proudly agrarian, and incapable of distinguishing between communism and New Deal liberalism, which were treated as twin forms of modern tyranny. Thanks in no small part to Chambers—whose religiously inspired turn to anti-communism became a significant influence upon conservative ideology owing to his classic memoir Witness, his friendship with William F. Buckley, Jr., and his essays for National Review—mainstream conservatism eventually came to support the use of American power in the world and to accept the legitimacy of a strong (if strictly limited) role for the federal government in American life.
Adding to the noise
Demagoguery in modern politics
In reaction to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, Jake offered a nice analysis of the role of the 30-second ad in politics and mass decision-making.
I’d like to add to his excellent analysis a few reflections of my own, which I hope will complement his approach.
Jake’s concern is whether protecting television and radio ads as political speech will vitiate what it means to engage in democratic deliberation. Telling someone that X candidate is a danger to America’s prosperity through a rapid-fire advertisement likely to pelt the viewer with negative images seems more like manipulation that discussion.
But is the problem incendiary political speech or the avenues of dissemination? Read more
Oh, I don’t know, I like all of them
I’ve always wondered what would happen if candidates for public office were asked about political philosophy. One of the more memorable examples of this occurred in 1999, during the Republican presidential primary debate in Iowa. Candidates George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, and Steve Forbes were asked the following question: “With which political philosopher or thinker do you identify the most, and why?”
Bush, answering third, simply replied, “Christ. Because he changed my life.” Not to be outdone, Bauer and Hatch picked Jesus Christ as well (actually, Hatch referenced Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan too). Only Forbes, the publisher, picked an actual philosopher – John Locke.
So… who would you pick? Should politicians be expected to know at least a few political philosophers? Is naming a particular philosopher (say, Mill, Hobbes, or Rawls) a dangerous move? After all, most figures in the field are either bait for criticism or so unknown as to turn off the average voter. Either way, it’s a fun stumper question!
-Colin
Hobbes and religion … in Hebrew
A collection of scholars weigh in on an odd, but interesting event: the first full publication of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan in Hebrew. While the first two parts (dealing with philosophy and politics) have long been available, the third and fourth (which deal with religion) had not yet been translated and published in the Hebrew language.
Among others, Yoram Hazony laments the suppression of the “Hebraic” side of Hobbes, and philosopher Stephen Darwall lavishes the following praise:
Thomas Hobbes is our greatest political philosopher. Why greatest? Others philosophized in the service of sounder political ideas, like democracy and human rights, but no one else has had Hobbes’s systematic mastery, rigor and originality.
Hobbes’s “state of nature” and authoritarianism have stood the test of time, but his theological thought is largely ignored today (the latter half of “Leviathan” is rarely assigned in class). It is a bit of a slow read. Perhaps we need a translation of our own, into modern English…
-Colin
In defense of reading Heidegger
Or “Yes, chapters 1-2 of Introduction to Metaphysics are still due Monday.”
Sam had the first TPP cut at the now strangely vogue question of Heidegger’s worth as a philosopher given his Nazi politics.
Judgment against Heidegger is easy. It is indisputable that he came to the defense of the world’s worst regime that presided over the world’s worst tragedy. However, the principle that we should therefore disregard his thought is flawed.
Philosophy, especially great philosophy, is valuable because it challenges conventional thinking, because it asks the reader to look beyond current values. It’s probably irresistible for many readers to condemn the actions of a particular philosopher. But by insisting that we not adequately come to terms with those authors’ ideas, we condemn ourselves to perpetuating conventional thinking.
It’s almost too easy to condemn writers who came to the defense of National Socialism. However, there are a host of other writers whose thought itself is deeply troubling (read: challenging). Nietzsche is an interesting case study. It is not true that Nietzsche defended some form of proto-Nazism. (He explicitly rejected German nationalism and anti-semitism; it was only at the hands of his profiteering sister that Nietzsche became associated with either). However, it certainly is true that his thought is anti-egalitarian, dangerous to the state, etc etc. There persists urban legends of professors that removed Nietzsche from syllibi after Leopold and Loeb. If a wide range of the public read Nietzsche and took him seriously, civilization itself might well be endangered.
Nietzsche would be joined by thinkers such as Machiavelli (cloak and dagger authoritarianism), Plato (strict ordering of the classes by intellect, opponent of democracy), and others as thinkers whose thoughts would be dangerously out of fashion today. But those thinkers remain solidly in the pantheon of the world’s greatest and most-read philosophers. Indeed, the value of their thought is that they articulate powerful critiques of modern values.
But you don’t see the same anti-Nietzsche screeds. And, interestingly, it was Nietzsche’s thought that is politically disturbing — he had no impact on politics (and little impact even the academy) during his lifetime. None of the popular anti-Heideggerians have a coherent critique of the man’s writing or ideas — just his actions. If Heidegger’s opponents could construct a coherent argument for how his thought leads unavoidably to genocide, there would be a much better argument. But, for students serious about philosophy, Heidegger would then be a figure to be engaged and refuted. It’s the role of the philosopher to identify and discredit demagoguery — not to ignore it, leaving dangerous thought to be taken up by future generations.
-John
Share us