Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Words of Wisdom for Bernie and Donald from Aristotle
“For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have an things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them. Further, those who have any complaint to bring against the magistrates say, ‘Let the people be judges’; the people are too happy to accept the invitation; and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution.”
–Politics, Written 350 B.C.E, Translated by Benjamin Jowett
Published in General, History, Religion & Philosophy
Sounds about right.
What does any of this have to do with Trump?
Seriously?
Seriously.
So far we are talking about:
This seems to be the complete catalog of trump sins.
And do it all by executive fiat.
Now that you mention, yes all of those are within the power of the presidency, except for seeking funding to beef up INS, and any health care changes which none have been proposed.
It would be perfectly reasonable to say that any or all of these things are unwise.
When the law is weakened (see Exhibit A, Obama) the flatterer of the people grows in power – rather than the statesmen.
I do not understand why this is directed to Bernie but not to Hillary, to say nothing of Congress and the Supreme Court. As for The Donald, though he gets the biggest press, he is merely one of many, and not nearly as dangerous as the monarchical power inherent in our current federal bureaucracy.
Edited to add that it is a great pleasure to read this from Aristotle’s Politics.
The bureaucracy does not flatter the public for power – although the executive which commands it often does.
The solution to the bureaucracy is either a repair of law or a replacement of it. Repair seems to be failing – and so people are turning to replacement.
They are turning to demagogues (e.g. Obama, Trump) and it is a dangerous turn. The demagogue, after all, is not really going to liberate them.
From here, it is not far to tyranny.
Hillary might further undermine the rule of law – but she isn’t much of a flatterer. She lacks the talent to be a demagogue and tyrant – but she can lead us further down that road.
The path of repair is still open. But that road requires working with law, not jumping to solutions through executive action.
We’re either there, or right on the cusp of it.
Is not Hillary flattering the myriad supporters of, say, Planned Parenthood and radical feminists, to say nothing of other Democrat Party constituencies? She may not appear to a conservative to be talented–it is difficult for us to see how anyone could find her attractive–but I would not underestimate her ability as a demagogue in her own peculiar way, particularly given the softness with which she is treated by the MSM. Nor, given her record with the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, would I underestimate her tyrannical abilities.
As for the bureaucracy, yes, I was not suggesting that it is a demagogue, although I would argue that is capable of flattery in its regular offering of apparent goodies (including secure government jobs) and that it tends toward the tyrannical. And yes, the solution is the reimposition of the rule of law.
However, are you certain that Trump means replacement rather than repair? I am worried about Trump, too, especially because of his shallow understanding, but I am not certain that relying upon his self-interest is worse than relying on anyone else at this point.
Well there’s that 25% tariff on Mexico and forcing China to revalue by imposing a tariff. His immigration policy focuses on a wall and deportation, but doesn’t even mention how most illegals arrive and what to do about them. The total absence of mention of limited government, the rule of law under our constitution should be bothersome and his life long support for progressive causes should be the clincher.
I was not trying to exonerate Trump, and I agree that his lack of understanding of our legal tradition is a serious problem.
Sandy,
Aristotle speaks of flattery – not of buying people off. The tyrant has a weakness for the flatterer and the demos for the flatterer. Offering to work within the law to give your constituents goodies is not a good thing – but it seems a sickness that is fundamental to democracy.
The flatterer works differently – overruling the law altogether through the power of his empty praise. A flatterer doesn’t have a consistent ideology – just appeal. He overturns courts and bureaucrats alike by appealing to the mass. And he destroys constitutions.
Hillary might well abuse the power the executive has acquired, but she lacks the power to supercharge it through an appeal to the people.
I can not imagine her staying in office beyond her terms.
I can imagine Trump winning these primaries, thus then opening the road to Hillary to take the Presidency. Afterwards, in our despair at the state of our government by law, the road would be open to the era of a Bernie or a Trump.
They could then take power and forever change the character of the republic. Their shallow understanding is a sign of their demagogic appeal.
Richard Harvester:
I don’t want to make too much of this, but the line between flattery and buying people off with goodies can be quite thin, because underlying the giveaway is the notion that a particular constituency deserves the goodies. Thus unions, for instance, are not just bought off but are flattered as the salt of the earth, the especially deserving working man, etc., etc., because that is a necessary part of the deal. Everyone wants to be thought of as just.
Why do you describe the flatterer as necessarily without a consistent ideology? Surely some are, and Trump may be of that type, but surely Obama is not.
It is thin. I just don’t think Hillary is much of a flatterer – goodies or not. Nicolas Maduro could never match Chaves – even when handed the tyranny pre-baked.
We know the Founders studied Aristotle and the like. That was one of the reasons for forming democratic republic–so that we wouldn’t be ruled by demagogues. Right.
I think the separation of powers was supposed to slow this down. And it has. But eventually the magistrates are overwhelmed by the executive.
Can someone forward this to Obama? While we’re on the subject of those that break the law and don’t think they are breaking the law, I keep seeing so many comments (not here, but in general publications) from women who say that Hilary has done more for women’s rights than anyone else ever……..really? Like what? I cannot think of any, and support for Planned Parenthood doesn’t count. Of course they will blindly work to get her elected.
On the contrary, Laura Bush was very outspoken about women and girls in the Middle East and throughout the world having the right to learn, go to school, and she made education and reading her hallmark.