The original Lyceum, as some of you may know, was a gymnasium in ancient Athens that served as a place of military exercises and later as a school of philosophy under Aristotle beginning in 335 B.C. Because of my own military background and my interest in philosophy and political science it seemed like the perfect name for this blog, which I created mainly as a forum for amicable discussion with friends who share these interests. In the days and weeks ahead I will occasionally post my thoughts, and I encourage you to read and comment on them. A few words before you do:
1 - I am not terribly interested in partisan politics, though I may occasionally comment on them. I am much more interested in philosophy and political theory, particularly the "first principles" of Western philosophy (from ancient Greece through the Enlightenment) that led to the birth of our nation. I am a republican, not a Republican, a difference I hope to explain in greater detail in future posts.
2 - I prefer discussion to debate, and dialogue to diatribes.
3 - I have many other responsibilities and hobbies that compete for my time, so I may be slow in responding to posts. Bear with me.
Thank you for visiting my Lyceum, and I look forward to hearing from you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I often wonder if we are fooling ourselves that there was ever a "golden age" of political debate in this country, free from partisan screeching and insults? Look at the nasty things that were said about Abraham Lincoln in Democratic newspapers. Even George Washington came in for some pretty ugly criticism in his day. Maybe we tend to view the past through rose-colored glasses of 50/50 hindsight.
I would not dispute that point at all. In fact the partisan rhetoric at the beginning of our republic was if anything more vitriolic, as there were deeper divisions in our society at that time. Among other things, the press was much more partisan at the time, sometimes inflaming the opposition so badly that they would storm newspaper offices and destroy the printing presses.
My interest in that era, however, has constantly led me to observe that the earliest Americans (particularly the founding fathers) had a much deeper awareness and appreciation of history and philosophy that is almost utterly absent among today's politicians. They were fighting for ideals drawn deeply from ancient Greece and Rome as well as from the Enlightenment, and the idea of a "virtuous republic" was always on their minds, as they believed it critical to the success of democracy. Today, at a time when people gripe about the erosion of our democracy, I think it's worthwhile to explore the reasons why democracies ultimately succeed or fail, and that exploration inevitably takes us back to the intellectual debates at the beginning of our republic. I will have a lot more to say about this in future posts, but I'm glad you brought it up now.
Of course, when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr disagreed, they could settle it like men, and shoot it out.
Which is a not so serious way of saying that I think there's a singifigant problem that's often ignored by those who deify the ideals of the founding fathers- they were all rich, established, white, men. Largely the intellectual elite of the society, the government that they formed was one for them and there was signifigant discontent at the time. A "virtuous republic" is a lofty ideal, but Daniel Shays probably didn't care what was on Jefferson's mind.
None of this is said to diminish the success of the American Constitutional system- it's better than anything else so far. That's largely a reflection of the flexibility that's built into it. I'm personally of the opinion that such flexibility is due to the founding fathers confronting some very real politik issues rather than the superiority of the lofty ideals.
Maybe so. It just troubles me that so many elected officials today apparently have no grounding at all in political theory of any kind. For that matter, they are often ignorant of the very Constitution they're sworn to uphold and defend. Or they just make a mockery of it by selectively ignoring the parts that don't fit with their partisan agendas at any given time. Take the 10th amendment for example, which Dems and Reps at the federal level regularly ignore. There may be some room for disagreement about the meaning of it, but it seems pretty clear to me, and it's arguably the keystone of the federal system. Rather than see it ignored and violated so routinely, I'd prefer a healthy debate over whether we should even retain it. Either we have a federal government with a limited sphere of action and a constitution that defines those limits, or we don't. It doesn't seem that difficult to me, but granted, I cling to an idealistic view that probably conflicts with the pressures of elective office, where everybody wants something from you. And, as Jefferson said, it's the "natural order of things" for liberty to yield and governments to grow.
Mind you, I'm no rabid states' rights advocate who thinks the federal government should be eviscerated and left utterly impotent. I favor a strong central government, but one that operates within strict limits and can't just continually arrogate more power to itself. Sadly though, again because there is so little knowledge or education about the founding era and the ideas that shaped it, much less a culture that values self-discipline and frugality, every new generation of Americans just assumes that the federal government is a benevolent provider that should cater to our every whim, and so the unhealthy growth continues.
Post a Comment