A Philosophical Conversation

There are many diverse views of human nature in philosophy, and from them come an equally varied amount of political systems. Today three of the most famous political theorists, whose views have been essential building blocks upon which the governments of the Western world are built, have gathered to discuss their ideal political systems and the forces of humanity which drive them into being. Thomas Hobbes first published his famous treatise The Leviathan in 1651, in which he sets out his view of human nature and the ideal political system which will result from it. Jean Jacques Rousseau followed with his most famous work, The Social Contract, first published in 1762, a political treatise which basks in the enlightenment and rejects much of his predecessor’s philosophy. Finally, James Madison, the man responsible in large part for the American system of government, wrote his Federalist Papers in the late 1780’s, drawing upon ideas from his famous forebears to craft a new political system, which has proved remarkably durable and resistant to sweeping changes, and under which we live today. These three men will discuss their views, and we will observe and learn from their arguments and engagement.

To start then: the three will commence with a discussion of their view on the role of citizens in the government, and Rousseau has begun with the statement “…as soon as any man says of the affairs of the state, what does it matter to me? the state may be given up for lost.” Rousseau explains that the state is composed of the joint input of its entire citizenry, who must regularly gather to decide what is best for their society, and voice their opinion of this good. This constitutes the general will, and in so doing it the people form a sovereign, and thus legislate themselves. Rousseau goes on to say that in his conception of a state, the people will generally agree on the good, and eventually will come to recognize it to the point that decisions approach unanimity. He argues that if people elect representatives to legislate for them or if they merely stop attending out of apathy, then the general will is lost, as is the freedom found in the citizens as sovereign, and thus the justification for a just political society to exist. He does suggest that people will need an executive “lawgiver” to enact the laws which the people have decided upon, and a judiciary to help in situations where the government and the people have reached a disagreement, or individual people differently interpret laws, but the fundamental power to legislate must remain with the people en masse.

Hobbes appears derisive of Rousseau, and is mocking him, asking him if he has discovered a new species to populate his state, or if he plans on living in a city of angels. Hobbes explains that people will in no way approach decision making as a way to enhance their community, but rather act in a self-interested manner to further their own agendas. People are driven towards a material need to enhance themselves at all others expense, and will do so if there is a reasonable expectation they will be able to accomplish it without adverse consequences. Rousseau’s system is a perfect one for any person who wishes to take advantage of others, and Hobbes assures Rousseau it would not in practice work, but rather is incredibly unstable and prone to violence and abuse. Better, says Hobbes, to place all power in one person, whom he has termed a leviathan, and thus escape the uncertainty and instability of sharing power. In fact, Hobbes says, the citizens have no place at all in deciding how their society should be governed, aside from their initial decision to voluntary give the leviathan the power to govern them, and outside of defending themselves against execution. The most stable government structure, which will ensure the security of people and limit their ability to act in any selfish way which would return society to chaos, is one with an single absolute authority governing as a monarch, with the ability to both legislate, interpret, and enforce the laws.

Madison appears skeptical of both men, and thinks they have crafted equally flawed political systems. Responding to Hobbes, he appears a bit concerned at his unconcern for the individual and his willingness to trample upon what Madison terms their inalienable rights. He quotes Rousseau in saying that life is tranquil in dungeons, but that people are not happy there. However, he is not enamored with Rousseau either, and makes many of the same criticisms as Hobbes has made. People will tend to act in their self-interest, Madison asserts, and one cannot form a government based entirely on the concept that people can behave as rational citizens, concerned only with the common good, regardless of the adverse effects which they themselves may experience in response. Madison explains that in Rousseau’s system factions will arise, and that in practice the governing body will be composed of different groups arguing for their own conceptions of the good, which will likely be intertwined with self-interest. Thus Rousseau’s system will be unstable, as Hobbes has pointed out; prone to violence and abuse.

The speakers have became quite sidetracked by this discussion of factions, with Madison summing up his interpretation of his peer’s theories thusly; “There are… two methods of removing the causes of factions: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence (here Hobbes nods happily); the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Rousseau explains that in his view the second one is quite close to what will occur in his state, but that citizens must only exercise this sense of unanimity when engaged in the legislating process. Also Rousseau says, he has placed strict limits on the size and diversity of his state for just this reason, and he candidly admits his ideas may not work well in a larger or more diverse state; furthermore, he asserts, people must be well educated. At this point he gets up and begins passing out copies of Emile to the audience, while Madison attempts to respond. Rousseau’s ideas are quite impossible, he says; man is fallible, unequal, and will always seek to advance different notions of the good. To say that something as subjective as a proper education will make them otherwise is completely asinine. Hobbes merely explains once again that factions cannot form if the government keeps a close enough watch over the people that they cannot exercise any political activities, and reasserts that stability and security are the most important products a government must provide, and that its people cannot ask for more.

Madison is now fleshing out his answer to the original question of people’s participation in government. Citizens, he says, must elect their own representatives, who are likely to be the wisest among them, and in so doing hope to control the power of subversive factions; in short, as there is no just way to prevent the causes of factions (Hobbes throws up his hands in disgust here), one must seek to control the effects. This is achieved by setting checks and balances upon the government, though different divisions. First, the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive must be held by different people, with complete separation between so they cannot influence each other. Here Madison turns to Rousseau, who has returned to his seat after running out of copies of Emile, and confronts him on the size of his state, asking him how in the contemporary world he could realistically expect to form a state in which the people are so similar, and the size is so small. He doesn’t wait for a reply, but explains that in his republic, the larger size and diversity is an asset, not a liability, and that a federalized form of government will ensure that minority voices are not trampled over, but rather given a pedestal upon which they can give voice to their concerns. Rousseau’s system, asserts Madison, will fall victim to the tyranny of the majority, whilst Hobbes is a simple tyranny; neither is suited to forming a just and effective government. He appears to have won the crowd over, and is receiving standing applause.

At this point questions are being asked, and the theorists are asked to flesh out some justifications and underlying foundations for their theories. They are asked their ideas concerning human nature, and to explain how their political systems have grown out of this interpretation. Hobbes, eager to regain some momentum, quickly responds. We must not think humans have any inherent goodness, he says, quickly gaining the crowds attention. Although not everyone is evil, and not everyone will act only in their self-interest, a great enough number are and will that it is rational to conceive of humanity as self-interested, and to base our actions upon that concept. At the base of this self-interest is a quest for individual survival, and all of our actions come from that concept. Furthermore, we are all roughly equal, and the greatest one of us is not so much greater than the weakest that we are immune to harm from that person. This leads to a concept of original society, a state of nature, as Hobbes terms it, where people each act according to their own survival instinct, and each has an incentive to distrust and preemptively engage another, in order not to be a victim. Their lives are “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and the clear conclusion he draws is that any anarchic structure of society would be in effect a constant state of war. People will thus form a covenant, voluntarily giving up their own power to the leviathan, and giving him absolute control over the formation of society, to do as he pleases as long as security is maintained. In this way, and this way only, will peace be maintained and the awfulness of the state of nature escaped. The crowd is hushed, and Hobbes looks triumphant. He asserts that his prison does not look so bad, now that people understand the alternative.

Rousseau jumps into the quiet with a rejection of Hobbes’ view. People, he says, are by nature inclined towards two things. First, they look towards their own survival, and secondly they have a natural pity towards their fellow man. In his theory of the state of nature, people begin isolated and alone, and are moved only by basic physical needs. They are hunter-gatherers, and are limited enough in population that there is no scarcity, in contrast to Hobbes conception. They are also motivated towards pity of their fellow man, and are naturally disinclined to engage in violence or aggression towards him. However, this pity eventually leads them to form societies wherein they can help each other and more efficiently allocate their efforts. Living in society leads to emotional attachment between people, and thus to comparisons and value-setting, and people begin to view each other as having worth and status. People, once having become dependant on one another both physiologically and materially, cannot return to the original state of nature, and no longer live merely according to their natural needs. People then become dependant on material status, namely property, and economic inequality leads to political systems where the rich seek to perpetuate their wealth and keep the poor from changing the status quo. This leads to a political system based upon the rule of the strongest. Rousseau points out that Hobbes’ justification is merely a perpetuation of this political idea, and has been used by those in authority to maintain it at the people’s expense. That is why, he argues, his form of government is so important to enact. Having lost their natural freedom to the chains of materialism and wealth, which is expressed through the unjust political society they live in, people can only find freedom in the expression of themselves through the general will, and thus return to a state where they are self-governing, as they were in the state of nature. He notes here that it is important to realize that in the state of nature they were governing themselves according to physical laws, while in the just civil society they are governing themselves according to reason.

Madison has been sitting quietly for quite some time now, absorbing his colleagues present their contrasting views. Once again, he says, his colleagues have each presented flawed arguments; while each has captured a part of the truth, they have not managed to explain the complexity of human nature, and have each arrived at flawed conclusions. First of all, he says, they are both wrong in their assertion of natural equality. Man is clearly unequal in any number of ways, ways which are important and which directly affect their ability and method of interaction with political society. Some men are wiser than others, some are more likely to put their own good first, some to put the general will first. What is important is that they are all equal before the laws of society, and that no man can claim immunity from the law based on right of birth or supply of gold, including the executive, a point upon which he and Rousseau are in agreement (Hobbes, however, grimaces in clear disagreement). Madison agrees with Hobbes that man is by nature self-interested enough that he cannot be expected to enact laws according to an abstract general will, and explains that the government, as he previously observed, is created to ensure that this self-interest is controlled. He does agree that man has an innate self-worth, a right to that equality before the law, and a right to express their differing opinions. Like Rousseau, he sees property rights as the founding justification of government, one which has led men to engage in forming factions to protect their interests, and which has led to different classes, namely the property-owning and the proletariat. Since men are naturally unequal, they will necessarily acquire property unequally, which is just and which the government must protect; once again, what is important is their equality before the law.

Madison says his theory of human nature is the accurate one, and points to the success of his system as opposed to Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ ones, each of whose he once again critiques. The best form of government, he says, is one in which people’s self-interest is allowed to drive society, not one in which they must completely subjugate it to beneath reason. Better to let the government attempt the creation of laws concerning the good, and let the people engage in their selfish activities as long as they remain within this framework of laws. This political system will recognize man is not to be trusted to act in a moral fashion. Madison now quotes another of his colleagues whom he was known to disagree with, Thomas Jefferson, as having once said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Man then, is bound by a web of regulations and norms which govern his behavior, and he is expected to make his way within them as best he can, putting himself first, and the community a distant second. Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau appears at all convinced, but then, as they are no longer living, how could they be?

What Happened To Karl Marx?

Marx’s revolution never happened; at least, not as he envisioned. After Marx and Engels wrote their theories, argued with their critics, oversaw or influenced the beginnings of numerous fledging Communist parties and movements, and finally passed awenvisioned and wrote about. When Lenin emerged as leader of the USSR it was through his own adaptation of Marxism, one meant to hasten the inevitable triumph of the proletariat and avoid the capitalist stage altogether; he did not follow Marx’s blueprint (although Marx did write that Communist revolutions could take place in agrarian societies, provided other criteria were met). The Communist regimes which followed, from Stalin’s Russia, Tito’s Yugoslavia, and Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Castro’s Cuba, not to mention a host of other countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America which adopted its tenets to some degree, all failed to achieve what Marx had envisioned. Indeed, all those which showed any permanency were marked by similar characteristics. They did not allow for rival political thought. They did not allow or seeked to subvert religion. They centralized power. They forced dissidents to work in labor camps. They set up vast internal spy apparatuses. Inevitably, they moved towards handling people merely as a resource, which could be mobilized as needed, and who were valued merely for how they fit into the great machinery of the state. The worst of them brought about some of the greatest horrors mankind has seen, from Stalin’s gulags to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. With the fall of the Soviet Union and its client states, Communist as an alternative ideology has virtually disappeared from planet, and the few remaining cases are connected more by their poverty and repression than by any successful realization of Marx’s ideology.

Any interaction with Marxist ideology must address its failure to manifest itself as a workable political system.

To those who would defend him still, the meaning in his writings were subverted, the revolution came too early, or was never fully or energetically implemented. For those who see the innate contradiction and incoherence of his ideology, what happened was the inevitable result of a flawed theoretical construct of the world, based less on the science it claimed to be a product of than on the flawed writings of an admittedly brilliant man, whose attempt to reduce the entirety of human existence, past, present, and future, to a simple calculation of economic progress and process was ultimately unachievable.

The lack of success in achieving Marxist society, and the abuses and hardships which resulted from attempting it are a direct product of the flaws within his original theory. Marx believed that the state would ultimately ‘wither away.’ In order to achieve the goal, however, he espoused centralization, increasing the government's power. Marx’s theory claimed to explain the entirety of human existence; however he left out many specific policies and ways of achieving them, often explaining that these would become clear only through experience. He wanted to liberate the working class; but to do this he argued for a strict hierarchical structure of revolution under tight central control. He supported the use of terror by the Jacobins in France; he argued for the violent assumption of power by the proletariat. His depiction of economics as the primary factor within which history flowed was overly simplistic, and his denial of the importance of religion and culture, and his own vision of a future free of them, led to further oppression wherever Communism took root. Communism did not manifest itself as totalitarian despite Marx’s views; it did so because of them.

This is not to say Marx’s ideas did not have value; the very scale of his vision is stunning, and he exhibited instances of prescience. His depiction of economic globalization was dead-on. His vision of economic activity as ever-increasing was accurate. His view of capitalism as rewarding those who minimized labor costs through innovation and increased efficiency was brilliant (His theory of the value of labor does not account for technological innovations or efficiency gains as an alternative means from which the entrepreneur could extract the surplus however, as he maintained it was always at the expense of the laborer).

In a different sense, the ideas he espoused were interpreted in ways which increased the power of labor vis-à-vis employers. Strikes, collective bargaining, and unions all came about as a result of leftist pressure and organization, from intellectuals and activists who often had read Marx. Similarly, pension plans and social security blankets were adopted by government in order to defang Marxist critics. Although Marx himself would surely be furious at those interpretations of his writings, seeing them as a betrayal of his uncompromising vision, they have surely benefited the world and its inhabitants. This seems to be the remnants of Marxism today. Well, that and its use as a critical framework to examine the negatives of capitalism. Pointing out negatives, however, does nothing besides pass the time if it is not used as a tool to search for solutions, and Marx left it to others to accomplish that.

Why Thomas Hobbes Matters Today

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan was a groundbreaking work in its time, and the ideas he put forth still hold importance and relevance to us today. His essential argument is that people are by nature self-interested and concerned primarily with their own survival. Any anarchic structure of society would thus be in effect a constant state of war, which can only be stopped if the participants submit themselves to an absolute authority. This argument is easily understood, and the elements of truth in it are evident anywhere authority breaks down (Somalia, Yugoslavia during the breakup, etc..). Despite this, virtually no one in today’s world, and particularly in the developed world, would agree with all aspects of Hobbes’ thought, especially his assertion that we must always submit to the Leviathan, who may act as brutally to us as he so wishes, trampling upon our individualism, so long as absolute authority is maintained.

My primary area of disagreement with Hobbes philosophical thought is his simplistic construction of human instinct in such a way that it always manifests itself as a drive for individual survival. A cursory study of human history shows many instances where man has martyred himself for some perceived cause, be that his family, his faith, his country, his culture, or some other reason. In smaller ways too, men have shown a capacity to act against this individualistic nature (survival instinct), offering others sustenance or shelter at their own expense. Indeed, a woman in nature must do this biologically if she is to fulfill her natural purpose of reproduction, weakening herself in order to provide nutrients for her child (both before and after birth). Although a complete survey is likely impossible, it is relatively simple to examine a few prominent examples of individual sacrifice.

Family sacrifice – As mentioned above, a mother must routinely go through sacrifice for her child. Parents in general will weaken or even martyr themselves for their children, or even their spouse. This can perhaps be explained through the urgings of evolution, as evolutionarily each individual is just a vehicle for carrying our genes to the next generation.
Religious sacrifice – Religious martyrs are a timely example of individual sacrifice, as the individual kills himself for a perceived spiritual gain. Perhaps this can be explained by the belief in an afterlife, making this sacrifice just a rational decision to ensure a better eternal life, but it still contradicts Hobbes’ insistence on survival in this plane.
Sacrifice for country or ideals – This sacrifice is hardest to justify, as one must extrapolate the survival mechanism onto ensuring the survival of certain ideas or culture as being more important than the individual, which Hobbes does not seem to allow for.

Although it seems clear that Hobbes does not account for the survival mechanism’s transcendence of the individual, could we instead view Hobbes arguments n the sepcies level. In the above examples, we could construct a unified argument which asserted that every case of persoanl sacrifice as done for the greater benefit of advancing humanity. However, I would argue further that the survival mechanism is not always the proper construct to view a man’s actions. Instead, I would argue that each individual has within them an ethical self which is capable of overcoming their survival instinct, and making decision’s based instead on a greater good. Looking at the world through this medium, it is easy to see whereby a man might sacrifice himself for a cause he viewed as ethically right, ignoring his survival impulse. If this view is accepted, it also leads one to see why Hobbes Leviathan would be unjust in his ability to terrorize the individual for the good of society, as the intrinsic value of each human being must be protected, often even at the expense of society, an idea which has been used often in our own country’s history.

This is not to say Hobbes’ theories do not have worth; they have been valuable in constructing theories of international relations, and I believe they do largely explain the evolutionary side of man’s dual nature. Also, there is an important and often overlooked part of Hobbes’ theory which I think has been essential to shaping Western society, and at some level has contributed to the success and development of the Western world. This is his insistence that the power of the Leviathan comes from the people. In the 1600’s much political thought was based upon the idea that sovereigns ruled by a divine right, (given to them by God) and thus their authority existed outside of their subjects. By constructing a theory where the sovereign’s authority comes from the people, Hobbes helped put in motion what would become the separation of church and state, and eventually the ability of people to check the authority of the executive through certain other institutions (admittedly, he did not intend to argue for a modern republic). The increased importance of this idea coincides with the rise of Western power, in contrast with the decline of Persian and Arab empires, where this idea did not gain primacy (although it existed in some form), and helped set in motion the power structure of today’s world.

Barack Obama and the VP Nominee

So who will Barack Obama pick as his choice for vice-president?

Does it matter? After all, the vice-president is really only responsible for one important function; voting to break ties in the Senate. After an initial burst of news, the vast majority of dialogue will quickly revert to the candidates themselves. Barack Obama generates headlines by the minute, and his support comes more from his soaring rhetoric and personality than for policy minutiae, qualities which lend themselves to his certain overshadowing of any candidate he might pick. Many vice-presidents have gone four or even eight years without making any significant policy decisions.

Others, however, have been an instrumental part of their boss’s team (one need look no further than the last eight years to see perhaps the most influential vice president in history). Young and in perfect health, full of energy and lofty (if vague) ideas, it is unlikely, although not impossible, that any vice president in an Obama administration will have significant influence in making policy decisions, as Dick Cheney and, to a lesser extent, Al Gore enjoyed.

Despite all this, it does matter; his choice of running mate will indicate the region or policy area where Mr. Obama feels he needs a little boost, and help frame the issues which the campaign wishes to disucss. So what qualities does Mr. Obama possess that will narrow down his choices, and what might he be looking for in a running mate?

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama is a mold-breaking politician. The most mentioned theme running through his campaign is his race. As a black man running for president in the United States, he has had both challenges and opportunities that no previous white nominee has experienced. By running on a message of unity and emphasizing a focus on healing divisions, he has sought to portray himself as a post-racial candidate, one who can bridge the black-white divide and act as the embodiment of America’s final atonement for its racially charged past, leading the country into a glorious future of unity and understanding. Although this is a strong message, and one his many supporters frequently point out, it has not stopped racially based fear and mistrust. Thanks in part to the Clintons’ tireless attempt to portray him as a “black candidate,” and helped immeasurably by Jeremiah Wright, the primary polls showed an increasing number of white voters who said that race was a factor in their decision, and an increasing number of those who did not vote for Mr. Obama. This was especially true in states in which both black and white voters were living in large numbers and intermingling; hardly meshing with his theme of unity and a post-racial America.

His speaking ability and message of hope has inspired many, but it never caught on in heavily blue-collar areas the way it did with young voters or those who worked in white-collar America. Partly due to the lack of specifics beneath his hopeful rhetoric, and exacerbated by some ill-advised statements he made about blue-collar people “clinging to guns and religion,” he was increasingly portrayed as an elitist who was out-of-touch with everyday American concerns during the primaries. John McCain has continued to emphasize this, running ads proclaiming that Mr. Obama is the “biggest celebrity in the world,” and his recent vacation in Hawaii has not helped matters.

A companion to the idea that Mr. Obama is an out-of-touch celebrity elitist is the inescapable fact that beneath his soaring rhetoric lays a politician with remarkably few accomplishments or convictions. He has been a national politician for less than a single term. He has virtually no foreign policy experience (outside of undergraduate school), and his time in the Senate has passed with relatively few laws that he can claim to have had any part in helping to craft. He has no executive experience, and has never been in charge of anything noteworthy. If not for an amazing speech in 2004, it is highly unlikely he would have even ran for president, never mind inspiring the millions that now extol his virtues.

When thinking of who to pick for his running mate, what must Barack Obama consider? Generally, candidates are looking for certain qualities in a vice-presidential nominee. They can balance the ticket, providing reassuring experience and accomplishments in an area where the candidate is weak. Mr. Obama can thus attempt to offset his most glaring policy weakness, his lack of foreign policy experience in the middle of a war. People such as Delaware Senator Joe Biden or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would appear to be good choices if that is his main focus. Or perhaps he is most worried about his inability to connect with white working class voters. Joe Biden still works here, but an all minority ticket with Bill Richardson might be too much of a test of America’s tolerance, as might one with a woman such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. He may want someone with executive experience, such as Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. The last reason to pick a candidate is to win a certain state. The names mentioned most often for this reason are Mr. Kaine and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, another white man, who would appear to give the Democrats a good chance to win Indiana. Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania would also work based on this reasoning, but he appears an unlikely choice based on his propensity to speak a little too freely, and his tendency to criticize everyone.

There appears to be a final three who would be up to the job and meet the most important criteria; namely being a white man without major baggage. Messrs. Biden, Kaine, and Bayh would each bring something different to the ticket. Joe Biden, a former presidential candidate in his own right, has a long and impressive foreign policy resume, and would take care of Obama’s biggest policy weakness. He has spent the last few days in Georgia, prominently backing that country (at least with words) in its conflict with Russia. On the surface, he seems to be the strongest candidate, one who can appeal to a vast majority of voters, and who is well-respected for his knowledge and experience on both sides of the aisle. Look closer though, and his weaknesses appear. He was laughed out of his first presidential campaign after stealing large swathes of speeches from a British politician; last year he offended many by proclaiming that Mr. Obama was the first clean-cut black man to run for president. Mr. Obama could go with one of the other two, who are both calming presences and more prone to boring speeches than off-the-cuff gaffes. It could depend on which state (Virginia or Indiana) could be put over the top by his choice. The risk to choosing Mr. Kaine, who is pro-life, is that women who supported Hillary Clinton may view it as the one slap in the face too many, and the love-in Mr. Obama has planned for the convention in Denver, which is supposed to unify the party behind him and bring the remaining Clintonites into the fold, could turn into an ugly spectacle. Mr. Kaine also has no foreign policy experience, and would not seem to help Mr. Obama too much outside of Virginia. The risk to choosing Mr. Bayh is that his early support for Iraq and his generally centrist policies could anger Obama activists who are already unhappy about their man’s move to the center, although most of them would grudgingly admit that they would vote for Mr. Obama no matter how far he moves out of the hard left. Mr. Bayh would also help to heal the rifts left over from the primaries, as he was a strong supporter of the Clintons and is seen as more of an insider politician, something which carries its own risks.

All in all, it should come down Mr. Bayh or Mr. Biden, and the recent events in Georgia would seem to give the edge to Mr. Biden, although a last second gaffe or some new scandal can always tip the balance (as can an unknown affair or other piece of dirt). No one involved in choosing Mr. Obama’s running mate is likely to forget George McGovern, and the disaster that was Thomas Eagleton and electroshock therapy.