November 11, 2006
Is the Pen Mightier Than the Sword
"Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword"
Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
Richelieu, 1838 II, ii
THE SPIRITUAL VERSUS THE MATERIAL
Think back about the struggle in North America to secure respect for “the traditional rights of Englishmen” from 1763 onwards. How important was the use of language in the Patriot cause that argued its case in pamphlets and in Parliament, declared its cause in the Declaration of Independence, won the Revolution on the battlefield, and secured the peace in the Constitution?
Think back about the political elites in Virginia and Massachusetts and the movement to present a united front against the Stamp Act and other imperial measures. Think about Benjamin Franklin using his charm and people-skills to explain the colonial cause to Parliament and to garner the Franco-American Treaty of 1778 from France. Think about Thomas Jefferson and his magical words in the "Declaration of Independence." Think about Thomas Paine and his powerful and punishing prose about Great Britain and monarchies. Think about George Washington and Valley Forge and during the Newburgh Conspiracy and that elusive quality of leadership and trust. Think about James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and the other authors of “The Federalist Papers” and the powerful influence of their argumentation on the ratification debates.
Think about Franklin’s final comments at “The Constitutional Convention,” as well as his self-deprecating stories, his way of qualifying his words with “maybe” and “it might be,” and his letting others take the credit for actions for which he was responsible. Think about Colonel William Prescott’s stirring lines on the top of Breed’s Hill. Think about Patrick Henry exclaiming, “Give me liberty or give me death!”
On the other hand, think about the substantial French assistance to the Patriot cause in the form of money, weapons, and eventually diplomatic recognition, combat soldiers, and a naval fleet. Think about loans from Dutch bankers. Think about all the soldiers in the continental army, their losses and victories, the suffering and sacrifice - the English soldiers they killed. Think about the Battle of Long Island, the winter at Valley Forge, and finally the seige at Yorktown. Think about the emerging world war and the changing strategic winds of fortune that forced Great Britain to seek terms after 1783.
After having thought about the entire period in question, I would like you to respond to this question: Can words win a war and secure a peace? Did they do so in 1776 at war and in 1789 during peace? Or did French gunpowder and de Grasse's fleet do that?
Some people see the intellect and questions of spirit to be absolutely central to our affairs; and it is thus both in our personal and public lives. This is very much an Enlightenment stance. (Lux in tenebris lucet!)
Others see high-minded rhetoric and expressions of belief as only so much hypocritical blather that belies deeper and more fundamental material interests. Talk about whatever you want and think what you think, but in the end it are material realities and physical laws which determine the nature of our lives. No matter what we say, the argument goes, we are really driven by the darker and less rational drives of greed, hunger, desire; as the Marxist historian would claim, “If you really want to see what it is about, ignore the rhetoric and follow the money!“ Words are naught but self-delusion – we know ourselves not, or are too afraid to look a base reality in the face. And by the time a word is uttered, it is already dead in our hearts.
What do you think? Did language win the American Revolution (in the “Spirit of ‘76") and secure the subsequent peace (in the United States Constitution of 1789)?
"In war there is no substitute for victory. … Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword never saw a machine gun."
General Douglas MacArthur
Posted by foothilltech at 06:00 PM | Comments (12)
November 03, 2006
The Social Contract in America: Reality or Myth?
"...whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper #1
MONARCHY VERSUS REPUBLIC
Saddam Hussein headed a government that few Americans would enjoy: one of those, common throughout history, that used cruelty and repression to cower the population - a police state. Yet there was relatively little public opposition to his regime, as none would be tolerated. Fear kept order. Iraq seemed orderly (especially compared with nowadays).
Yet as soon as his grasp on power slipped, the country descended into chaos. It was like all the bottled up energy of many years came flying out. When people saw they could get away with it, they got away with as much as they could.
Now for some three years Iraq has lumbered painfully towards a democracy, and they are trying to hammer out a constitution and build a nation where all interested parties can have a say in government. But the progress has been uneven, and the country seems close to civil war as ethnic Kurds battle ethnic Arabs, and the Shia and Sunni Muslim sects seem set on slaughtering the other. The ties of blood and tribe and religion seem stronger than anything else. Saddam Hussein supposedly claimed that if you got rid of him you would need "nine dictators to keep control of this country."
Events seem to have born him out. But only time will tell if reason and negotiation can result in consensus in a democratic Iraq, or if religious and tribal strife will bring about chaos and civil war -- or another dictatorship that will rule with an iron grasp equal to that of Hussein’s. Will the traumatized people of Iraq by then welcome such a leader? Would another bloody dictator who could bring iron-fisted security to chaotic Iraq be better than an anarchic republic with a feckless government? Too much government? Too little government?
As we have discussed in some detail, a Republic is founded on very different lines than a Monarchy. Instead of relying on a cop on every corner and a secret police force, it relies on its members coming into voluntary agreement with laws in which they have some say in creating. Instead of seeing power come down from a virtuous ruler to an unruly people, power flows up from an involved and aware people to its elected representatives. Through education and a free press and open elections, mankind can rule himself. There is no need for a parental force. As UCLA basketball coach John Wooden put it, "Discipline yourself and other won't have to." Free individuals can control themselves - or at least that is the idea. We can trust each other.
We can move beyond contention and reach consensus. Change can occur at the ballox box, obviating the need to effect change at the barrel of a gun. As Alexander Hamilton noted, in explaining his hope for the ratification of the Constitution in "Federalist Paper #1," the question was "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." The people can discuss, debate, and deliberate on the burning issues of the day. Once a decision is arrived at collectively, the people will agree to follow the rules.
But is this true? Think about Polybius and his theory of the cycle of governments. Think about Iraq today as it painfully tries to develop a democratic government. Think about the United States around the time of the Constitutional Convention. Think about the America in which you live today. Think about Foothill Technology High School and Ventura County? Think about your family. Your religion.
Are the cynics, like Saddam Hussein, right? In this world with people as they are (often bad – very bad!), is the hope of people compromising and reaching consensus a fool's hope? Ben Franklin thought it almost laughable that his fellow men were “half beasts, half devils”? But considering the evidence one sees almost every day, is it so laughable? Jonathan Edwards might have responded that real evil does exist in the world, and reason is not enough to defeat it.
In the end is it really about power? Is the use of reason and persuasion overrated? Is America really a place where we obey the laws and see society as based on a “social contract” between the governed and the governing? Can we reallly agree to trust each other? Or at the end of the day is “the Man” with the gun enforcing the law what keeps people in line, no matter what some say? Do we obey the rules because we are afraid of the consequences of not doing so? Or do we obey the rules because we rationally believe that rules keep a society safe and stable?
How about going a bit deeper...?
How in America might there be rules that are enforced by others besides the government? Short of breaking a written law enforced by police, what rules keep order in the community and establish social norms? Who makes these rules? How are these rules communicated between us? What is the penalty for failing to heed them? (Is it possible that we have LESS freedom in the United States than in countries ruled by dictators?)
Click on graphic to see whiteboard from class discussion.
Do power and force rule? Do the strong “do what they want, while the weak suffer what they must”? Or do persuasion and reason work? Can individuals make rational decisions for their own benefit? Or do they need rules and their choices to be made by others? Does anyone really care about freedom? Or are most people content to "go with the flow," wherever it might lead them? Is the natural flow towards irresponsibility, anarchy, self-slaughter - and then monarchy again?
From what you have seen and read about, how closely does the reality of our Republic contrast with its theory - the idea that Americans live in a country where liberty reigns, where they can make their own rational choices to live free and at peace with their neighbors and themselves.
Or are we not really free?
What do you think?
"A monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet are always in the water."
Massachusetts Congressman Fisher Ames
(1795)
Posted by foothilltech at 10:10 PM | Comments (8)
October 20, 2006
Predestination vs. Free Will
"He that waits upon fortune, is never sure of a dinner."
Ben Franklin
PREDESTINATION VERSUS FREE WILL
In the beginning of our class we spoke much about goals and dreams for the future; implicit in this conversation is the belief that we have the power to forge our own paths and create the lives and characters we want for ourselves. Benjamin Franklin, the poor-boy-done-good and the prototypical "self-made" man, would approve. It is perhaps a very "American" point of view.
George Whitfield, on the other hand, might feel that there was too much pride and self-indulgence in this point of view and not enough humility in the face of God's plan for each of us. An orthodox believer might very well preach more submission to God and His grace and less concern with the things of this world. In a different vein, the Greeks used to exclaim, "The gods laugh at those who make plans!" In ancient Greece only a hubristic fool thought he had full control over his fate, and in such a case punishment from the gods was not far off. Islam literally defined means "submission to the will of Allah."
Much in contrast to Franklin and his energy and industry in the things of this world, George Whitfield claimed the following: “And there is still the more occasion for such an alarm, because worldly-mindedness so easily and craftily besets the hearts of men.” One sees those men who think in their heart of hearts that they know better than their Maker! Whitfield also explains, “Various are the pleas and arguments which men of corrupt minds frequently urge against yielding obedience to the just and holy commands of God.” As the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale would have understood, what is started in error and pride can end only in sin and death; what is an "error" or "sin," hence, take on great importance. The role of God becomes more exalted, and the actions of men come clearly within the context of Godliness and "right" action.
One can imagine Franklin would remain unmoved. He once tersely said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Elsewhere Franklin commented, "I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did." He was much more of a man of the world than Whitfield, and he put more emphasis on the improvement of this world - and even on its perfectability! Another "Deist," Thomas Jefferson, claimed similarly, "For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged."
In a similar vein, William Shakespare in his play "Julius Caesar" once asserted -
“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny, but in ourselves.”
Yet his fortune seemed to be predestined. You might also remember Romeo and Juliet were also "star-crossed lovers" doomed to tragic deaths. Shakespeare seemed to deny to them the power to alter their fates.
Is this true? How much of our lives are dictated by fate? How much of our lives are determined by predestined circumstances vs. our own determination to create and change our futures as we see fit? Are our lives planned out for us even before we are born? Or do we have some control in how they turn out? How much? Do things really happen “for a reason” – a reason that is ultimately part of this giant plan seemingly so much larger than any of us? Or, rather, do things happen as a result of our own actions, of the choices we make and the decisions we follow through with? What role might religion (or lack thereof) play in a person’s view on this subject? Personal experiences or background? How might one’s opinion influence the way they live their life?
Think carefully about your own views and be sure to analyze the complexities of the foundations behind the concept of predestination. Wade into this discussion and discuss what most interests and/or concerns you.
“The doctrines of our election, and free justification in Christ Jesus are daily more and more pressed upon my heart. They fill my soul with a holy fire and afford me great confidence in God my Saviour.”
George Whitfield
Posted by foothilltech at 07:09 AM | Comments (9)