Talking about acrimonious political debates..... when I served as a naval officer in the Royal Australian Navy, whenever we had to host a guest we were told never to discuss politics or religion....for good reason.....
I often wonder why some people are so invested in their own political opinions to the point that it becomes counter productive to continue any such discussions, lost is the chance of being able to contribute anything positive to the discussion.....not to mention the destruction of good relationships that may exist between the people involved......
After all, what are we basing our judgements on?
Cicero must have been a great inspiration for many people....
David, good question. My guess is that political identity is, well, part of personal identity. So some people feel so invested in it that they take disagreement about ideas to be an attack on their person. In extreme cases this may be justified: I don't think there is any ground for constructive political discussion with a Nazi, say. But in most cases the result is the one you describe: no chance of learning or changing minds, and the undermining of personal relationships.
I actually do think the election was rigged which is to say the entire machinery of state was clearly against Trump. I also think the whole Jan 6 thing is massively over hyped. But then again i think Trump was and is an oaf of a fool as a politician who made one horrible misjudgement after another and he got what he asked for. Either way i dont find anything morally shocking about either the Pro / Anti Jan 6 thing that is just how the World works I am pretty sure Epictitus felt the same way when he was banished from Rome. And I am reading this and i think its very educational. .. just saying :)
Humans, being imperfect, sometimes make poor decisions, including that of determining how good their leaders are. We don't like anarchy. We do want government to do things for us. Even a Libertarian wants a police force of some kind.
Because of our imperfection, the problems arise right at the beginning:
"Should we oppose tyranny? Yes, always."
The problem is: when is a leader a tyrant?
For example, there were many who thought the Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a tyrant:
It quite often happens that leaders transform into tyrants - that power corrupts. So the question of opposing tyranny begs the question: when does a leader become a tyrant?
Second observation: I am not so worried about tyrants as I am about the people who support them. As the Tucker Carlson and Fox News debacle has shown, leaders are in thrall to their followers as much as the other way around. My question is: how can society go so wrong? One of the greatest shocks to my understanding of human nature was the election of Donald Trump in 2016. It was obvious from the escalator ride on June 15, 2015 that the Donald was unfit for public service.
By the end of his administration I had come to the conclusion that Donald is an evil man. Not a great evil, like Mao Tse Tung or Nicholas Maduro, but a mean, petty evil. Donald is a failure in so many ways: a failure as a businessman, a failure as a husband, a failure as a president. He wanted to be a great evil like Putin, who he seems to admire. But he was even a failure at that.
But, to me, the deeper problem was this: over 70% of all evangelical Christians voted for Trump. This is a case of a whole religious movement declaring moral bankruptcy. That is the bigger problem. How can a whole social group go so wrong? Humans are social animals, and social cohesion is of fundamental importance. What is it that drives the mob to such extremes? For without a large portion of society backing them, the tyrant is nothing.
Finally, once the bandwagon is rolling along, and the tyrant has driven it out of control, how do we stop? This is the problem in present day Russia. The Putin bandwagon got going twenty years ago. It has had a lot of support in the meantime. I saddens me to note that, considering the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers killed in the last year, Putin was last re-elected by about 70% of the vote, with about 70% voter participation. So, it is likely that by voting for Putin, probably 50% or more of the motherrs of these soldiers signed their son's death warrant. But now the Russian bandwagon is in the process of going over the cliff. Jumping off when things are hurtling out of control can get you killed. Hanging on until the crash will too. What to do? Perhaps the best that can be done is that your own life is likely forfeit either way, so you might all well do whatever action that saves as many other lives, be they your fellow citizens, or those onlookers in other lands and other times who may look on your actions as an example of what to do, positive or negative. In that sense, Cicero was an example to us.
Anthony, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Some of your points would require a full post to explore, and maybe we’ll return to the issue.
But regarding when a tyrant is a tyrant, I think that just because some people didn’t like Roosevelt that didn’t make him a tyrant. If he was elected, subject to another vote, and acting within the Constitution, it is hard to imagine in what sense he was a tyrant.
This poses an interesting question: what defines a tryant? Political science is a disipline that is still being formulated. As far as I can tell, being a tyrant means that they are an illegitimate ruler somehow. It also means an absolute ruler. But absolutism is also what makes a dictator, a state of affiars that was tolerated under some circumstances in Rome.
Some personal context is in order: For about 30 years in my misspent youth, I was an acolyte of Ayn Rand, until I put her teachings to the test and found them wanting. In summary, she broke her own primary rule in that she faked reality all the time. And just as bad, her logic was seriously flawed, sometimes being reduced to the level of ad hominem arguments. In short, she exemplified pseudo-philosophy.
But there are many people who still have faith in her viewpoint, despite its flaws. These include many Libertarians. And these people influenced conservatives, including a large portion of the Republican party. I have to take the blame for this myself, being a party member before the scales fell from my eyes.
But, having come from that viewpoint, I know that, under the definition of a tyrant as being an illegitimate ruler, there are many people who would consider Roosevelt a tyrant, and point to his court-packing scheme as proof, arguing that his actions were unconsitutional and he knew it. Obviously, no one can claim him to a an absolutee ruler. But the question of whether or not he was acting within the Constitution is subject to debate.
And, as to being elected, well, so was Vladimir Vladimirovich in Russia, way back when.
So this whole notion of what makes a tyrant is not so cut-and-dried.
Antony, congrats on leaving Ayn Rand! Make take on her is the same as yours.
A tyrant is really no different from a dictator. I still think it’s pretty hard to make a reasonable case that Roosevelt was either. His packing of the Court has been argued to be constitutional.
Yes, Putin was elected. So were Hitler and Mussolini, but the way they consolidated their power was not democratic. Same for Putin.
To be fair, it hasn’t been tried that much. As you know, by “philosopher” he didn’t mean someone with his head in the clouds. He meant a virtuous person.
I live in the colony of Scotland, part of the collapsed British Empire - we didn’t revolt at the time much of Europe did, possibly as we had endured the Glorious Revolution and its subsequent failure some time before. So that’s my locus.
My comment: tyrants should be opposed and are ultimately doomed as dynastic succession is difficult to achieve. Those who manage will find themselves no longer called tyrants.
Virtue is the highest human ideal but one must be cautious in one’s attempts to approach its perfection. The shortcuts along the way are very attractive and invariably compromising. The world is far too complex and has too many actors to anticipate the consequences of our actions.
John, you are right about the difficulty of anticipating the consequences of our action, especially long term. But then again, we do need to act. One way or the other.
I’m in total agreement. Whether it’s through inaction or action. I hope I didn’t sound paralysed but admit readily to a cynicism which has (and does) frequently tripped me up (with the often questionable benefit of hindsight).
I stopped watching news from Poland because the right wing government is so reminiscent of Trump's narrative. In Italy it is only slightly better and the right wing is also in power, the same in Sweden which used to be always socialist. I wonder what are the factors we overlook that trigger support for a tyrant.
There are now a lot of Ukrainian refugees in Poland who are accepted and welcome, but refugees from Syria die on the Polish-Belarusian border. The situation in Poland reminds me more and more of communist times, more appropriately called totalitarianism.
Eliza, I’m afraid you are right. As for the reasons that bring people to support autocracy, they are varied. They include a sense of security, an admiration for strong men, lack of education or understanding or empathy. And probably many others.
everything is arranged in such a way that we slowly get used to evil, and then we ask ourselves how it is possible that we are "suddenly" ruled by a tyrant who leads some to slaughter and others to crime.
This is a question that now frequently surfaces. It’s no different from asking “Would I leave a sick loved one? Who would benefit from my leaving (or remaining)? The question is more a test of self than a test of an evil external power. Leaving or remaining isn’t always an option. Personally, I’d rather stick with needier. It seems more virtuous, optimistic, and decent than running.
By chance I am listening to a Lawfare podcast on Timothy McVeigh and how he’s a part of the same movement that led to the January 6th coup attempt. All laws are based ultimately upon violence; the use of violence is something we must carefully consider and examine critically both as individuals and as a society, so as to minimize harm and maximize flourishing. The goal needs to be a civil society of citizens, not a militarized society of vigilantes.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and this historical perspective from another troubled time.
Agreed. I think the true value of a democratic republic is in this compromise, which necessitates debate and finding common ground. I think that we need to be careful about laws because they need to be worth enforcing. Censorship is dangerous because it threatens violence in the form of enforcing the law, very disproportionate to the alleged crime. Where this is relevant to me is how and to what degree I should “step out of line” and stand against rightwing or leftwing attempts to silence expression, and what forms of expression I think should be limited in some venues (but not others).
Morton, I seriously doubt Stoicism can hurt anyone, either physically or mentally. On the contrary. But of course we all have to take the journey we judge to be appropriate for us, so all the best luck to you.
My suggestion is to steer clear of contemporary examples, because then we get into acrimonious political debates that don’t advance understanding.
That’s why I wrote The Quest for Character using only examples from ancient times. They allow us to think about our own issues but without getting too emotional. It is then to each one of us to interpret and apply the learned lessons.
Patrick, I don’t think it’s difficult to define a tyrant: someone who is in complete control and acts arbitrarily, regardless of law of ethics.
Regarding Cicero advocating the murder of Mark Anthony, he had a point: if you go as far as engaging in tirannicide you can’t leave the tyrant’s henchman alive. He will simply become the next tyrant.
Interesting matters for reflection.......
Talking about acrimonious political debates..... when I served as a naval officer in the Royal Australian Navy, whenever we had to host a guest we were told never to discuss politics or religion....for good reason.....
I often wonder why some people are so invested in their own political opinions to the point that it becomes counter productive to continue any such discussions, lost is the chance of being able to contribute anything positive to the discussion.....not to mention the destruction of good relationships that may exist between the people involved......
After all, what are we basing our judgements on?
Cicero must have been a great inspiration for many people....
But Epictetus will always be my favourite......
Enough rambling for now....
Thanks again for a thought provoking essay....
David, good question. My guess is that political identity is, well, part of personal identity. So some people feel so invested in it that they take disagreement about ideas to be an attack on their person. In extreme cases this may be justified: I don't think there is any ground for constructive political discussion with a Nazi, say. But in most cases the result is the one you describe: no chance of learning or changing minds, and the undermining of personal relationships.
I actually do think the election was rigged which is to say the entire machinery of state was clearly against Trump. I also think the whole Jan 6 thing is massively over hyped. But then again i think Trump was and is an oaf of a fool as a politician who made one horrible misjudgement after another and he got what he asked for. Either way i dont find anything morally shocking about either the Pro / Anti Jan 6 thing that is just how the World works I am pretty sure Epictitus felt the same way when he was banished from Rome. And I am reading this and i think its very educational. .. just saying :)
Thank you for sharing this Higher Wisdom and Insights
Three observations come to mind:
Humans, being imperfect, sometimes make poor decisions, including that of determining how good their leaders are. We don't like anarchy. We do want government to do things for us. Even a Libertarian wants a police force of some kind.
Because of our imperfection, the problems arise right at the beginning:
"Should we oppose tyranny? Yes, always."
The problem is: when is a leader a tyrant?
For example, there were many who thought the Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a tyrant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
It quite often happens that leaders transform into tyrants - that power corrupts. So the question of opposing tyranny begs the question: when does a leader become a tyrant?
Second observation: I am not so worried about tyrants as I am about the people who support them. As the Tucker Carlson and Fox News debacle has shown, leaders are in thrall to their followers as much as the other way around. My question is: how can society go so wrong? One of the greatest shocks to my understanding of human nature was the election of Donald Trump in 2016. It was obvious from the escalator ride on June 15, 2015 that the Donald was unfit for public service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign
By the end of his administration I had come to the conclusion that Donald is an evil man. Not a great evil, like Mao Tse Tung or Nicholas Maduro, but a mean, petty evil. Donald is a failure in so many ways: a failure as a businessman, a failure as a husband, a failure as a president. He wanted to be a great evil like Putin, who he seems to admire. But he was even a failure at that.
But, to me, the deeper problem was this: over 70% of all evangelical Christians voted for Trump. This is a case of a whole religious movement declaring moral bankruptcy. That is the bigger problem. How can a whole social group go so wrong? Humans are social animals, and social cohesion is of fundamental importance. What is it that drives the mob to such extremes? For without a large portion of society backing them, the tyrant is nothing.
Finally, once the bandwagon is rolling along, and the tyrant has driven it out of control, how do we stop? This is the problem in present day Russia. The Putin bandwagon got going twenty years ago. It has had a lot of support in the meantime. I saddens me to note that, considering the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers killed in the last year, Putin was last re-elected by about 70% of the vote, with about 70% voter participation. So, it is likely that by voting for Putin, probably 50% or more of the motherrs of these soldiers signed their son's death warrant. But now the Russian bandwagon is in the process of going over the cliff. Jumping off when things are hurtling out of control can get you killed. Hanging on until the crash will too. What to do? Perhaps the best that can be done is that your own life is likely forfeit either way, so you might all well do whatever action that saves as many other lives, be they your fellow citizens, or those onlookers in other lands and other times who may look on your actions as an example of what to do, positive or negative. In that sense, Cicero was an example to us.
Anthony, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Some of your points would require a full post to explore, and maybe we’ll return to the issue.
But regarding when a tyrant is a tyrant, I think that just because some people didn’t like Roosevelt that didn’t make him a tyrant. If he was elected, subject to another vote, and acting within the Constitution, it is hard to imagine in what sense he was a tyrant.
This poses an interesting question: what defines a tryant? Political science is a disipline that is still being formulated. As far as I can tell, being a tyrant means that they are an illegitimate ruler somehow. It also means an absolute ruler. But absolutism is also what makes a dictator, a state of affiars that was tolerated under some circumstances in Rome.
Some personal context is in order: For about 30 years in my misspent youth, I was an acolyte of Ayn Rand, until I put her teachings to the test and found them wanting. In summary, she broke her own primary rule in that she faked reality all the time. And just as bad, her logic was seriously flawed, sometimes being reduced to the level of ad hominem arguments. In short, she exemplified pseudo-philosophy.
But there are many people who still have faith in her viewpoint, despite its flaws. These include many Libertarians. And these people influenced conservatives, including a large portion of the Republican party. I have to take the blame for this myself, being a party member before the scales fell from my eyes.
But, having come from that viewpoint, I know that, under the definition of a tyrant as being an illegitimate ruler, there are many people who would consider Roosevelt a tyrant, and point to his court-packing scheme as proof, arguing that his actions were unconsitutional and he knew it. Obviously, no one can claim him to a an absolutee ruler. But the question of whether or not he was acting within the Constitution is subject to debate.
And, as to being elected, well, so was Vladimir Vladimirovich in Russia, way back when.
So this whole notion of what makes a tyrant is not so cut-and-dried.
Antony, congrats on leaving Ayn Rand! Make take on her is the same as yours.
A tyrant is really no different from a dictator. I still think it’s pretty hard to make a reasonable case that Roosevelt was either. His packing of the Court has been argued to be constitutional.
Yes, Putin was elected. So were Hitler and Mussolini, but the way they consolidated their power was not democratic. Same for Putin.
Semi-democracy raises perhaps more subtle issues. Rome to was semi.
Is it the semi-nature that makes a country vulnerable to tyranny?
Good question! Plato thought differently: he maintained that a pure democracy is mob rule, and it can easily slide into tyranny.
Well, Plato also thought there could be 'philosopher kings' but with perhaps a few exceptions that's not worked out.
To be fair, it hasn’t been tried that much. As you know, by “philosopher” he didn’t mean someone with his head in the clouds. He meant a virtuous person.
True. The problem is trying to recognize a virtuous person and getting them in power.
And. then hoping they remain virtuous when they have power.
Yup, those are big ones!
I live in the colony of Scotland, part of the collapsed British Empire - we didn’t revolt at the time much of Europe did, possibly as we had endured the Glorious Revolution and its subsequent failure some time before. So that’s my locus.
My comment: tyrants should be opposed and are ultimately doomed as dynastic succession is difficult to achieve. Those who manage will find themselves no longer called tyrants.
Virtue is the highest human ideal but one must be cautious in one’s attempts to approach its perfection. The shortcuts along the way are very attractive and invariably compromising. The world is far too complex and has too many actors to anticipate the consequences of our actions.
John, you are right about the difficulty of anticipating the consequences of our action, especially long term. But then again, we do need to act. One way or the other.
I’m in total agreement. Whether it’s through inaction or action. I hope I didn’t sound paralysed but admit readily to a cynicism which has (and does) frequently tripped me up (with the often questionable benefit of hindsight).
I stopped watching news from Poland because the right wing government is so reminiscent of Trump's narrative. In Italy it is only slightly better and the right wing is also in power, the same in Sweden which used to be always socialist. I wonder what are the factors we overlook that trigger support for a tyrant.
There are now a lot of Ukrainian refugees in Poland who are accepted and welcome, but refugees from Syria die on the Polish-Belarusian border. The situation in Poland reminds me more and more of communist times, more appropriately called totalitarianism.
Eliza, I’m afraid you are right. As for the reasons that bring people to support autocracy, they are varied. They include a sense of security, an admiration for strong men, lack of education or understanding or empathy. And probably many others.
everything is arranged in such a way that we slowly get used to evil, and then we ask ourselves how it is possible that we are "suddenly" ruled by a tyrant who leads some to slaughter and others to crime.
The banality of evil.
I still need to read this one
This is a question that now frequently surfaces. It’s no different from asking “Would I leave a sick loved one? Who would benefit from my leaving (or remaining)? The question is more a test of self than a test of an evil external power. Leaving or remaining isn’t always an option. Personally, I’d rather stick with needier. It seems more virtuous, optimistic, and decent than running.
Francesca, yes, I agree that it is in good part a test of self.
Thx. Sometimes, I’m hesitant to express thoughts that are not derived from wise philosophers.
😆
Never been to Syracuse, but I have been--briefly--to Augusta, Sicily.
Didn't make me think of any tyrants, but then I'm no philosopher.
Seriously, another interesting piece, friend.
By chance I am listening to a Lawfare podcast on Timothy McVeigh and how he’s a part of the same movement that led to the January 6th coup attempt. All laws are based ultimately upon violence; the use of violence is something we must carefully consider and examine critically both as individuals and as a society, so as to minimize harm and maximize flourishing. The goal needs to be a civil society of citizens, not a militarized society of vigilantes.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and this historical perspective from another troubled time.
Bob, I’d suggest that good laws are based on compromise and mutual agreement, though the *enforcement* of any law may require violence.
Agreed. I think the true value of a democratic republic is in this compromise, which necessitates debate and finding common ground. I think that we need to be careful about laws because they need to be worth enforcing. Censorship is dangerous because it threatens violence in the form of enforcing the law, very disproportionate to the alleged crime. Where this is relevant to me is how and to what degree I should “step out of line” and stand against rightwing or leftwing attempts to silence expression, and what forms of expression I think should be limited in some venues (but not others).
Bob, agreed. You will find me to be a fairly radical defender of free speech. There are some exceptions, but very few, in my mind.
Morton, I seriously doubt Stoicism can hurt anyone, either physically or mentally. On the contrary. But of course we all have to take the journey we judge to be appropriate for us, so all the best luck to you.
My suggestion is to steer clear of contemporary examples, because then we get into acrimonious political debates that don’t advance understanding.
That’s why I wrote The Quest for Character using only examples from ancient times. They allow us to think about our own issues but without getting too emotional. It is then to each one of us to interpret and apply the learned lessons.
Patrick, I don’t think it’s difficult to define a tyrant: someone who is in complete control and acts arbitrarily, regardless of law of ethics.
Regarding Cicero advocating the murder of Mark Anthony, he had a point: if you go as far as engaging in tirannicide you can’t leave the tyrant’s henchman alive. He will simply become the next tyrant.