Notes on "A History of Political Theory" -- Episode 15

For episode 14 see here

The Theory of the National State

XV. Machiavelli
 A. Medieval representative system suffered eclipse
       1. Growth of national unity  
       2. Growth of royal absolutism
       3. Corresponding changes in political thought
       4. Extended trade broke through localized economies:
          i. led to formation of class of men of wealth and enterprise
          ii. and allied with king against nobility
 B. Italy of Machiavelli (early 16th century) divided and weak
 C. Naked individualism of Italian republics' political life presaged modern age
      of individualism
 D. Writing in diplomatic tradition, Machiavelli lost sight of ends, seeing method
      (politics) as its own end*
 E. Saw two standards of morals
       1. Ruler -- judged by success in keeping and increasing power
       2. Private citizen -- judged by strength which his conduct imparts to the
          social group
 F. Assumed human nature is essentially selfish
       1. Meant desire for security on part of the masses...
       2. ... and desire for power in rulers
 G. Also saw man as aggressive and acquisitive; that there are limited resources
       leads to:
       1. condition of continued conflict, restrained by ...
       2. ... for of law, leading to ...
       3. ... the power of the ruler who provides security.
       4. became the political philosophy of Hobbes 
 H. Lawgiver constructs not only political life but also social
 I.   In society of egoists, only force behind law could hold society together
 J.  Favored popular, liberal and lawful government when possible, monarchy
       when necessary
 K. Was an Italian nationalist  

* Note:  Sabine gets Machiavelli not so much wrong as incomplete.  He did not loss sight of ends --  seeing only method -- but rather sought to bring The Prince to see that the best way to maintain power was to act with prudence (and at least appear to be moral) even when using force.  (The Prince was in effect a job application.)  In The Discourses, Machiavelli essentially encourages the rulers towards a Republic based on law as the best way to ensure stability.
 
Next week:  The Early Protestant Reformers

Notes on "A History of Political Theory" -- Episode 14

For episode 13 see here


The Theory of the Universal Community

XIV: Three Challenges to Christian Society

  A. Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII, France vs the papacy (1296-1303)
       1. Theory of papal supremacy brought to completion 
       2. Church saw spiritual realm including temporal means to spiritual ends
       3. Royalists tried to limit spiritual to questions of conscience making it
           dependent on secular arm for coercive power
       4. Papists saw pope supreme in the Church with both swords belonging
           to it
       5. Pope was successor to St. Peter, ruled by divine right
       6. Royalists legal formula was that the king has same power in the kingdom
           as emperor has in empire
       7. Saw king as independent of both emperor and pope 
       8. Confrontation between king and pope produced conception of the
           kingdom as political power not dependent on tradition of the Empire 
       9. Brings back Aristotle's idea of the state not requiring sanctification of
           religion to be legitimate
       10. Anti-papists argued along two lines
           i. spiritual power limited to only proper moral and religious exercise
           ii. objection to tyrannous rule and call for some form of representation
               and consent
  B. Marsilio of Padua and William of Occam (1323-1347)
       1. Temporal power established independently of spiritual 
       2. Considered question of absolute monarchy vs constitutional monarchy
       3. Problem shifted to relation between sovereign and corporate body be
           ruled
       4. Marsilio: Averroist Aristotelism
           i. separates reason from faith, both are true and yet may contradict 
           ii. reasserts human society as self-sufficient in the fullest sense
           iii. good life is good in this life and good in next, reason is truth of
                good life here with revelation as truth for the next life
           iv. consequences of religion in this life limited to spiritual teaching.
           v. clergy are just one class in the state among others and as such
               are subject to state regulation
           vi. made distinction between divine law, from God, for attaining best
                of the next life from corporate power, for attaining the best in this
                life
           vii. only human law carries earthly penalties
           viii. anticipated Luther on the priesthood of all Christians, denial of
                  hierarchy in the Church especially the pope, view of religion as
                  essentially an inner experience, and denial of cannon law
           ix. as practical, concedes a General Council to oversee the Church as
                 representative of the corporate body
       5. William: The Freedom of the Church
           i. advocated for excommunicated minority against papal sovereignty,
               rights of subjects against ruler and rights of minorities
           ii. saw theology as mainly having to do with supernatural things,
               while reason was the realm pf philosophy
           iii. continued tradition of Duns Scotus against St. Thomas 
           iv. argued for representative check on papal power 
           v. derived authority of the emperor from election by the College of
                Electors standing in the place of the people
  C. The Concilian Theory of Church Government 
       1. John Wycliffe and Jan Hus argued that the whole church (all Christians)
           was the recipient of divine law and spiritual power
       2. As part of the dependency on secular support, made the case for 
           greater dignity of royal power over spiritual power in this life
       3. Conciliarists provided first great debate on constitutionalism against
           absolutism
           i. spiritual power is vested in the church as a corporate body
           ii. clergy, including the pope, merely ministers or organs by which the
               corporate body acts
           iii. looked to custom, not will, of the people as source of authority
           iv. force of law, in general way, comes from consent
           v. the Council was to share authority with the pope but pope was allowed 
               to typically continue monarchical rule unless overstepped bounds
       4. With the failure of the conciliar movement, pope became the first of the 
            absolute monarchs and the theory of papal absolutism became the 
            archetype for monarchical absolutism

Connecting constitutional movements of the 17th and 18th centuries to the conciliar movement of the Middle Ages "was the conviction that lawful authority is a moral force while despotism is not, and that society itself embodies a force of moral criticism to which even legally constituted power is rightly subject. (327-28)

Next week:  Machiavelli
  

Premature Globalization

Globalization has come too early in humanity's history and gone too far. It is unsustainable with burdens and benefits distributed too unevenly to provide a basis for global stability. Globalization of the market has concentrated wealth in some places at the cost elsewhere of erratic consumer- and export-driven growth that distorts economic development and entrenches poverty. Free trade has meant cross-border transfers of jobs that have left many struggling to make ends meet in the “new economy” while helping others in low wage markets to enter the cycle. The resultant distortions have thus both concentrated and generalized inequality. Globalized media greatly magnifies the perception of inequality by delivering clear images of what is available elsewhere thus potentiating large-scale population movements. Globalization in the 21st Century benefits only some at the cost of the many who have been encouraged to believe that they too benefit from the increased availability of cheaper goods that they can't fix but must constantly buy anew. The majority of humanity still must struggle to attain or maintain a decent living for themselves and their families and a future offering hope for their children.

Within countries, those who directly benefit from the various facets of globalization face a rising tide of political opposition. In what may turn out to be a seminal offering, Peggy Noonan in a recent WSJ piece outlines an important distinction between what she calls the "protected" and the "unprotected." Taking this concept perhaps a little further than she would, the protected are those who make public policy or have purchased the people who do. Through their decisions and predominant political power, the protected impose mechanisms, processes and conditions that provide them direct benefit. The unprotected are those who must survive in the world that the protected make for them. The protected live the good life secure in their own communities. Because they are mostly insulated from any negative effects of their policies, they feel they can inflict anything on the rest. The unprotected live with none of these advantages and all of the fallout. Populist political movements from the left and the right have arisen in may places as the unprotected have lost their patience with traditional politics and politicians. In the US that includes Trump and Bernie Sanders, in Europe populist parties from France to Poland threatening or wresting political power from the “centrists.”

The root problem could be termed premature globalization. It might seem that the tying together of the world's economies might have been the result of some inevitable natural force. But the lowering of trade barriers and opening of borders has been the result of a myriad of political decisions by the protected. They have been able to move jobs to places with lower labor costs and to “import” – through legal and “illegal” migration – cheap labor to where they need it. Free trade always means that jobs move from one place to another. All those Chinese “lifted” out of poverty through years of high growth have come directly from jobs moved from America and elsewhere. The benefit to the unprotected – including the many in the developing world not able to compete with China or the West – has been slim and often fleeting. But as a friend has noted, free trade is only Pareto-optimal if the gains are broadly shared. The gains have not been broadly shared but the costs have.

Who benefits from free trade: the owners of capital and their public servants. They reap the profits and gain extra from buying favored treatment (openly or through corruption). Also, the local political elites of developing countries who monopolize power and skim off what comparatively little wealth trickles in from the global trade channels. Some from supplying raw materials (often mined or grown in ways wasteful and injurious to the environment and local populations), some from importing those planned-obsolescence consumer goods. (I freely admit to “benefitting” from the endless series of iPhones.) In America, they use their advantage to win favorable tax rates (or move operations elsewhere) while pushing to reduce “wasteful” government expenditure on things like infrastructure, healthcare or social welfare.

The primary role of government should be to ensure that all citizens can earn a basic living while helping them provide a suitable and nurturing environment for their children. This means the economy needs to provide a range of jobs from the highly skilled to the basic to mirror the natural mix of abilities and interests. Taking just the United States, over the last decades the Democrats and Republicans both have failed to meet this test. They have pushed the “benefits” of free trade at the cost of millions of jobs lost. Their mantra has been the benefits of those cheaper consumer goods and the possibility of newer jobs in the advanced economy. Even before the 2008 financial tsunami, those newer jobs were hard to find and most were lower pay.

When I was a lad in the 1950s and 60s, my parents raised five children on the salary of a truck driver plus the occasional factory employment of my mother. Try raising five children today on a working stiff's salary, even if both parents work. (How many political hacks rail against abortion but don't care a whit about how to pay for raising those children once they are born?) The protected also benefit from cheap imported labor, often forced to work off the books or as “contractors” without benefits. They do the jobs “Americans won't do.” Translation, they do the jobs Americans won't do at wages too low to allow a decent living.

Globalization would work well in a world of less pronounced inequality. But we have been pushed into it prematurely. The world of the 21st Century perhaps just does not produce enough wealth to share sufficiently for most people to have a decent life where they were born. Thus the wave of refugees – who come from the ranks of the unprotected whether because of conflict or poverty – overwhelming the gates of Europe or trying to somehow get through Mexico to the US. Maybe the only recourse is for societies that can afford to go it alone to raise the walls, close the doors and pull those jobs back to the homeland by ending free trade. Leave China to deal with its population without the benefit of those jobs imported from America. This is the appeal of the Trumps. It's hard to argue against and certainly the same old refrains from the protected – Democrats and Republicans – have lost their popular appeal. No matter who wins the American presidency or how hard Europe tries to prevent migrants from trying to cross, the unprotected are not likely to be denied forever.