I just wanted to announce that the video game review section of the Electronic Eremite, The Eremite's Game Room, is now up and running! You can reach it either from the links to the side or from the hyperlink within this post. If you are interested in PC and Wii game reviews, or just in gaming in general, check it out!
The first review will be up shortly!
Abbot Chris
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither
The educated among us might recognize that quote from the learned master statesman and inventor Benjamin Franklin. This week, in the Introduction to Modern European History class I teach we are discussing the rise of the Nazis and the subsequent start to World War II. One of the points I try to convey to my students is that anyone, from anywhere, could agree to the rule of an oppressive and repressive totalitarian regime if certain political, international, and economic conditions exist. There is nothing special or inherent within the German psyche that makes them more prone to totalitarian rule than any other nationality. Arguments that blame German ethnicity for the NSDAP are as wrong-headed as the ones the Nazi's themselves made.
So what point am I trying to make here? A quick glance at the historical record, as far as European history is concerned, proves that near totalitarian regimes are not an aberration, it is, in fact, liberal democratic governments that are the historical newcomer. The Roman Empire, a strict hierarchy of Patrician, Plebeian, and Slave, where a powerful emperor ruled by decree (despite the remaining remnants of the senate providing resistance), is certainly an example of early attempts at total social control. The middle ages, while lacking some of the Roman legal and bureaucratic apparatus to keep social order, at least until the 15th century, still witnessed the rule of kings and lords (not to mention the Church) that came close to strict societal domination. Examples, like that of the reign of Philip the Fair in France (argued to be a proto-fascist by Malcolm Barber), or the Fourth Lateran Council, highlight times where centralized "state-like" entities used considerable force to keep their citizenry in check.
It is not until the 19th century that experiments with citizen-based rule came to fruition (no the French Revolution does not count, as it failed miserably and produced one of the most totalitarian rulers in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte). Even then, governments based on the tenants of liberalism have only slowly integrated all of their citizens within the government (Voltaire warned about the "idiocy of the masses"). Britain, the traditional bastion of liberalism (John Locke and John Steward Mill, anyone) only instituted universal suffrage in 1928. The United States, "champion" of "democracy" (technically speaking the U.S. is a democratic republic) only allowed ALL its citizens the de facto (rather than de jure) right to vote in 1964. So democracy, and a citizen chosen government, is a very new and relatively untested principle even in the 231 years the United States has been in existence.
So the question to ask is, does human society (at least Western society) have a natural proclivity towards totalitarianism? Is security, even a temporary variety, a major priority for most nations' polities? Even in the most democratic of nations, like the United States, security issues dominate the platforms of politicians at the expense of questions of "equality" and "liberty." For instance, in the 2004 presidential elections, issues like terrorism and gay marriage (posed as a "decadent" attack on traditional morals and values) were key points where ideas like universal health care (promoting equality in medical care), electoral reform (to make sure certain minorities do not remain disenfranchised), and criticisms of the Patriot Act remain strictly on the sidelines of the campaign. The current U.S. president proudly proclaims that he does not listen to public opinion polls (indicating that he does not alter his course of action based upon the reaction of the citizenry, a key aspect of democracies but not republics). Several scandals, such as issues regarding government surveillance and the torture of political prisoners arose and were answered with little more than muted protest by both citizens and the legislature. Whatever one's political view, the reaction to these scandals is certainly much more relaxed than in previous years (think about Nixon, civil-rights rallies, and even the Civil War as reactions to restrictive federal policies). So, the question to ask is, in times of chaos and trouble, particularly when an amorphous foreign enemy threatens, do people tolerate or even ask for, a more controlling central government?
Putting the horrors of genocide aside, from a social order and efficiency standpoint, totalitarian governments certainly rank highly. During the late 1930s, democratic nations feared that democracy could be at an end, faced with the consolidating economic, industrial, and military power of the fascist nations. As far as recovering from a faltering economy, mobilizing public opinion, and creating a near united public morale, the planned economy and nationalist fervor of Fascism is admirably effective.
Perhaps this is why humanity has to be careful. History has also proved that the greatest instances of violence, excess, and destruction arises from these very same totalitarian governments. In many ways, for these governments to work, pubic opinion must be mobilized against a common "enemy," real or imaginary. By distracting the populace with en ever escalating feeling of external fear and a possible fear of internal infiltration, central governments run rampant against all those that oppose them, leaving only loyal supporters, or those too frightened or distracted to fight against them.
Perhaps this is why certain aspects of present day create a cause for alarm. Increasing rhetoric of Muslim terrorists (a category both ethnic and religion based) that exist in other lands, but even more frightening, hidden within our towns and cities is becoming an omnipresent part of political discourse. Economic downturn had been masked by fear of the foreign, explained away as a result of an increasing border threat from illegally immigrating Hispanics. Politicians are calling for a recovery of America by and for Americans only, whatever this may mean. The government asks for more power of surveillance, and is often granted it, as a tool to fight these unnamed terrorists. Talk of building border walls are greeted with positive reactions, rather than suspicion (walls keep things in as well as out).
So how far should the American population let their government go? Politicians on both sides of the political fence expound these ideas equally, neither has a monopoly on the idea of a more powerful and larger centralized federal government. Ideas of federally controlled education (with mandates of adding religious based "scientific theories" alongside more well respected traditional ones) are the provenance of both sides. No side shares less of the guilt, both act irresponsibly at the expense of the American citizenry.
To sum up, how much security should American citizens be willing to ask for, if the price is a form of essential liberty? Is this a natural progression of human history in the face of uncertain times? Where do we go next, and what are we willing to accept.
Am I saying that the American government is full of closet Fascists? No! Am I saying that governments in a time of strife have historically chosen the easy route of repression rather than accommodation of an opposing viewpoints? Yes! Take that in spirit it was offered, as a general historical warning.
As a closing comment, I would like to remind my readers of a fact that many do not know or do not wish to acknowledge. In 1932 the NSDAP was legitimately elected in Germany, chosen legally (not through a coup or military takeover) to lead the government. The most totalitarian of rules can easily pass through even the most democratic electoral process.
Abbot Chris
So what point am I trying to make here? A quick glance at the historical record, as far as European history is concerned, proves that near totalitarian regimes are not an aberration, it is, in fact, liberal democratic governments that are the historical newcomer. The Roman Empire, a strict hierarchy of Patrician, Plebeian, and Slave, where a powerful emperor ruled by decree (despite the remaining remnants of the senate providing resistance), is certainly an example of early attempts at total social control. The middle ages, while lacking some of the Roman legal and bureaucratic apparatus to keep social order, at least until the 15th century, still witnessed the rule of kings and lords (not to mention the Church) that came close to strict societal domination. Examples, like that of the reign of Philip the Fair in France (argued to be a proto-fascist by Malcolm Barber), or the Fourth Lateran Council, highlight times where centralized "state-like" entities used considerable force to keep their citizenry in check.
It is not until the 19th century that experiments with citizen-based rule came to fruition (no the French Revolution does not count, as it failed miserably and produced one of the most totalitarian rulers in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte). Even then, governments based on the tenants of liberalism have only slowly integrated all of their citizens within the government (Voltaire warned about the "idiocy of the masses"). Britain, the traditional bastion of liberalism (John Locke and John Steward Mill, anyone) only instituted universal suffrage in 1928. The United States, "champion" of "democracy" (technically speaking the U.S. is a democratic republic) only allowed ALL its citizens the de facto (rather than de jure) right to vote in 1964. So democracy, and a citizen chosen government, is a very new and relatively untested principle even in the 231 years the United States has been in existence.
So the question to ask is, does human society (at least Western society) have a natural proclivity towards totalitarianism? Is security, even a temporary variety, a major priority for most nations' polities? Even in the most democratic of nations, like the United States, security issues dominate the platforms of politicians at the expense of questions of "equality" and "liberty." For instance, in the 2004 presidential elections, issues like terrorism and gay marriage (posed as a "decadent" attack on traditional morals and values) were key points where ideas like universal health care (promoting equality in medical care), electoral reform (to make sure certain minorities do not remain disenfranchised), and criticisms of the Patriot Act remain strictly on the sidelines of the campaign. The current U.S. president proudly proclaims that he does not listen to public opinion polls (indicating that he does not alter his course of action based upon the reaction of the citizenry, a key aspect of democracies but not republics). Several scandals, such as issues regarding government surveillance and the torture of political prisoners arose and were answered with little more than muted protest by both citizens and the legislature. Whatever one's political view, the reaction to these scandals is certainly much more relaxed than in previous years (think about Nixon, civil-rights rallies, and even the Civil War as reactions to restrictive federal policies). So, the question to ask is, in times of chaos and trouble, particularly when an amorphous foreign enemy threatens, do people tolerate or even ask for, a more controlling central government?
Putting the horrors of genocide aside, from a social order and efficiency standpoint, totalitarian governments certainly rank highly. During the late 1930s, democratic nations feared that democracy could be at an end, faced with the consolidating economic, industrial, and military power of the fascist nations. As far as recovering from a faltering economy, mobilizing public opinion, and creating a near united public morale, the planned economy and nationalist fervor of Fascism is admirably effective.
Perhaps this is why humanity has to be careful. History has also proved that the greatest instances of violence, excess, and destruction arises from these very same totalitarian governments. In many ways, for these governments to work, pubic opinion must be mobilized against a common "enemy," real or imaginary. By distracting the populace with en ever escalating feeling of external fear and a possible fear of internal infiltration, central governments run rampant against all those that oppose them, leaving only loyal supporters, or those too frightened or distracted to fight against them.
Perhaps this is why certain aspects of present day create a cause for alarm. Increasing rhetoric of Muslim terrorists (a category both ethnic and religion based) that exist in other lands, but even more frightening, hidden within our towns and cities is becoming an omnipresent part of political discourse. Economic downturn had been masked by fear of the foreign, explained away as a result of an increasing border threat from illegally immigrating Hispanics. Politicians are calling for a recovery of America by and for Americans only, whatever this may mean. The government asks for more power of surveillance, and is often granted it, as a tool to fight these unnamed terrorists. Talk of building border walls are greeted with positive reactions, rather than suspicion (walls keep things in as well as out).
So how far should the American population let their government go? Politicians on both sides of the political fence expound these ideas equally, neither has a monopoly on the idea of a more powerful and larger centralized federal government. Ideas of federally controlled education (with mandates of adding religious based "scientific theories" alongside more well respected traditional ones) are the provenance of both sides. No side shares less of the guilt, both act irresponsibly at the expense of the American citizenry.
To sum up, how much security should American citizens be willing to ask for, if the price is a form of essential liberty? Is this a natural progression of human history in the face of uncertain times? Where do we go next, and what are we willing to accept.
Am I saying that the American government is full of closet Fascists? No! Am I saying that governments in a time of strife have historically chosen the easy route of repression rather than accommodation of an opposing viewpoints? Yes! Take that in spirit it was offered, as a general historical warning.
As a closing comment, I would like to remind my readers of a fact that many do not know or do not wish to acknowledge. In 1932 the NSDAP was legitimately elected in Germany, chosen legally (not through a coup or military takeover) to lead the government. The most totalitarian of rules can easily pass through even the most democratic electoral process.
Abbot Chris
Salve, amici!
Welcome! Having read my good friends' blog, I decided, "why deprive the world of my infinite wisdom (rantings) and well lettered prose (ravings), will the world not benefit from my professional and well-mannered commentary?" No, it probably won't... but that's not the point. Anyway, they say these blogs are cathartic, and Lord knows I could use some way to blow off some steam.
At any rate, the mission statement here at the Electronic Eremite is to provide my readers with thought provoking statements and interesting factoids that will hopefully provoke some response. Being "in exile" from my homelands with my wife, this blog should provide friends, both old and new, with a place to hang out and chat, debate and argue, and just plan laugh. I am a pedagogue by trade (no this does not mean something illegal or dirty) and so there will certainly be some book learnin' to be had from visiting this site. Hopefully, we all come away feeling happy and better educated.
Anyone who knows me will also attest that I am a video game fanatic (read addict). So the Eremite's second mission is to provide others with the benefit of my addiction... er... experience, with a wide variety of games. Hopefully, the reviews I post will be helpful to others making a decision whether or not to spend hard earned money on a potentially worthless product. Let me take the fall for you, why have a self-destructive habit if it can't benefit others?
So hopefully the Eremite will be updated on a regular schedule. I am terrible at keeping up with these things, email, reading, dishes, acknowledging my wife's existence... but maybe a little discipline will do me good. Or this may be the last post I ever make... who knows!
Anyway, welcome to the Electronic Eremite. Have fun! Drink some coffee and have some cake, it's free. Just don't eat the pie... that is for the King. If the King shows up, just let him say his piece. Its best not to antagonize him, he can be unreasonable... well... all of the time.
Best Wishes,
Abbot Chris
At any rate, the mission statement here at the Electronic Eremite is to provide my readers with thought provoking statements and interesting factoids that will hopefully provoke some response. Being "in exile" from my homelands with my wife, this blog should provide friends, both old and new, with a place to hang out and chat, debate and argue, and just plan laugh. I am a pedagogue by trade (no this does not mean something illegal or dirty) and so there will certainly be some book learnin' to be had from visiting this site. Hopefully, we all come away feeling happy and better educated.
Anyone who knows me will also attest that I am a video game fanatic (read addict). So the Eremite's second mission is to provide others with the benefit of my addiction... er... experience, with a wide variety of games. Hopefully, the reviews I post will be helpful to others making a decision whether or not to spend hard earned money on a potentially worthless product. Let me take the fall for you, why have a self-destructive habit if it can't benefit others?
So hopefully the Eremite will be updated on a regular schedule. I am terrible at keeping up with these things, email, reading, dishes, acknowledging my wife's existence... but maybe a little discipline will do me good. Or this may be the last post I ever make... who knows!
Anyway, welcome to the Electronic Eremite. Have fun! Drink some coffee and have some cake, it's free. Just don't eat the pie... that is for the King. If the King shows up, just let him say his piece. Its best not to antagonize him, he can be unreasonable... well... all of the time.
Best Wishes,
Abbot Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)