The Extinction of Politics A speculation speculation on the relationship relationship between Ecology, Politics and Government Government Dedicated to John Adams
Preface
When The Origin of the Species appeared Species appeared in 1859 the first people to appropriate Darwin’s ideas were the wealthy, who quickly promoted pseudo-scientific arguments using “natural selection” to rationalize their domination of society. At the time, anarchism, communism and socialism were all perceived as serious threats to the existing social order. Evolution seemed to offer a solid scientific rebuttal. rebuttal . This line of defense was eventually discredited, however, and today the phrase “social Darwinism” is universally recognized as a negative comment on half-truths that use “science” to excuse oppression and racism. The very mention of Darwin’s name in a political context is now likely to raise eyebrows. Nevertheless, in the following essay I have chosen to revisit the connection between evolution and politics. I justify this by examining the same subject and drawing wholly different conclusions. In the 19th Century Darwin was enlisted to justify the status quo. Fetid slums, child labor, eighteen hour workdays and global imperialism were all rationalized as necessary
manifestations of a pre-ordained natural process. Today, I would use Darwin to discredit, once and for all, the notion that such atrocities can any longer be justified; arguing that contemporary class divisions and the nationalistic sparring of global geopolitics are an anachronistic evolutionary inheritance from the pre-industrial era. Under the ecological dynamic governing our species during that former period class structure provided a vital advantage to human populations competing (militarily) over limited habitat (agricultural land). Class oppression and warfare were as inevitable as famine and pestilence; all necessary parts of a self-regulating natural ecosystem (much as the original social-Darwinists had in fact argued). However , in the post-agrarian, industrial world which emerged during the 19th Century that ancient natural system was upended. Famine and plague are largely behind us now. Social violence should be as well. Oppression and warfare are no longer unavoidable parts of a balanced natural system, they exist primarily because human social institutions which evolved under the former dynamic actively perpetuate them. As a species, our means of existence changed practically overnight, but social structures which arose over the course of millennia are not easily replaced. To end oppression, warfare and environmental insanity we must modify the institutional mechanisms which facilitate it. It is my contention (contrary to popular wisdom) that our Constitutional system of government is foremost among those anachronistic institutions upholding class divisions and perpetuating military aggression. The framers meant well but they were hardly Revolutionaries; they made modest adjustments to the traditional English governing institutions that they were familiar with. The resultant system was appropriate to the 18th Century but failed to anticipate the stunning changes that would inevitably be wrought by industrialism in the following centuries. From the 19th Century onward there have been countless calls for an end to the economic subjugation and interminable military conflict perpetuated by traditional governing institutions,
but the arguments used, on both sides of the debate, have generally lacked coherence. Supporters of the established order jettisoned Darwin in favor of Adam Smith but their arguments remain pseudo-scientific, with “market forces” replacing “natural selection” as a convenient excuse for a wide range of destructive practices. Proponents of change have shown even less creativity, making little effort to bolster the doctrine of Karl Marx despite despite its substantial shortcomings. Both sides regularly resort to couching their arguments in the language of Judeo-Christian morality, demonstrating that more scientific arguments have clearly fallen short of the objective. Neither side has ever seriously questioned the fundamental structure of Republicanism. In this environment of intellectual stagnation, nationalist and capitalist propaganda either goes unchallenged or receives ineffectual moral rebukes. Two centuries after the birth of Marx, oppression and warfare are as pronounced as ever, while the environmental consequences of the industrial revolution threaten to overwhelm human society. If social justice and environmental sanity are indeed possible, they will surely require an advancement of the intellectual position supporting them. The struggle between progressive and conservative forces hinges on ideas. The success of progressive goals depends (at least partially) on the quality of progressive concepts, and these remain mired in the past. There is as much orthodoxy on the Left as the Right. To move forward we must first confront our preconceptions. The views which I express in the following pages are unconventional, but I take comfort from the example of John Adams, who always possessed the courage of his convictions even when those convictions were universally unpopular. I dedicate this essay to Adams and quote him freely throughout because I believe that any argument against our Constitution should answer directly to the minds which created it. His thinking was central to the design of our Constitution but he was also a tremendous critic,
especially in later years. Perhaps after two centuries we may yet wish to consider those criticisms.
The Theological Interpretation of the Constitution
Study government as you do astronomy, by facts, observations and experiments; not by the dogmas of lying priest or knavish politicians
Whatever is not built on the broad basis of public utility must be thrown to the ground
Theoretical books upon government will not sell. Booksellers and printers, far from purchasing the manuscript, will not accept it as a gift
Experience and philosophy are lost upon mankind…
John Adams
John Adams was eminently qualified to lead our Country; a Harvard trained lawyer and polyglot with an encyclopedic knowledge of Western history, he was well equipped to judge on the important issues facing a young nation. As part of this broad wisdom, he had a firm grasp of two fundamental truths:
●
Governme Government nt is (or (or should should be) a science, science, not not a supe superstit rstition. ion.
●
Dogma Dogma and misund misunderst erstand anding ing (which (which permea permeated ted the the subject subject even even then) then) are an insurmountable obstacle to its progress.
If these obstacles held sway in Adam’s day, during the enlightenment, how much more so now, in an age when U. S. Lawmakers openly reject the virtues of liberal education and scientific knowledge; publicly disavowing the theories of Evolution and human induced climate change. Most contemporary Americans would endure a root canal before reading Locke, Rousseau or Montesquieu. Our elected representatives are no exception to this sentiment. In a more thoughtful age, Adams made a sincere contribution to the political literature and suffered the rest of his life as a target for every sort of libel and slander; all because he dared to suggest (on the basis of voluminous historic evidence) that an overly democratic Republic might have some serious unanticipated consequences. Today, no establishment intellectual would dare to question the divine perfection of our Constitution’s general plan. It would be an act of social heresy and professional suicide, contradicting the revered tenets of modern political science. But what kind of “science” enforces a rigid doctrinal orthodoxy? In natural science we've abandoned leeches and kite flying for genetic engineering and quantum computing, but computing, but the science of government stands stands motionless! After motionless! After two centuries centuries we we still argue over the precise intention of the framers, as though unable to think for ourselves. If computer scientists at MIT spent their days scrutinizing Benjamin Franklin's lab notes would we take them seriously? If your doctor discounted the existence of microbes would you continue visiting her? This isn't political “science”, it's theology! The Constitution has become a sacred tablet which the patriarchal pretenders of our society use to uphold a status quo from the pre-industrial era.
Grand Ayatollahs and Supreme Court Justices both wear black robes while enforcing conformity in the name of an ancient document, but there is a critical difference. The will of Allah is inscrutable whereas the earthly intentions of the framers were clearly stated in plain English at the beginning of their document. Secular ends demand secular means. When government becomes destructive of those ends it is the right of the people to change their means. This is the province of science, not religion. But the theological interpretation of the Constitution has become so ingrained we are blinded by it. Instead of doubting the institutions of government we accept their suitability as an absolute given, even when the actions of that government are frequently repulsive to us. Medieval peasants accepted the Catholic church as we accept the institutions of our Republic. On faith. Even the Inquisition was accepted as god's work, just as Guantanamo is considered defensible by many today. Even those who disagree with such atrocities seldom blame the institution itself: a wicked Cardinal? Cardinal? - yes certainly; a corrupt politician? - what else; But a failed institution? - no absolutely not; the Church and Republic are both beyond reproach no matter what horrors are perpetrated in their name. We must pray harder and campaign more vigorously. In the end virtue will prevail, both in heaven and on earth. For the faithful this attitude is understandable. Gods will is mysterious and we mortals must submit. For the secular follower of a political ideology, however, this attitude is inexplicable. The ideology is simply a tool established by mortals for an earthly goal; social harmony. When the tool fails to serve we must examine it to understand the problem. When we identify the problem then we may seek to repair it. Our Republic is often described as an experiment. If the framers were scientists their trial appears to have gone astray. It would seem wise then, under the circumstances, to review their thinking so that we may analyze the situation intelligently. We should examine their words not
as a sacred text but as laboratory notes, seeking clues, not religious instruction. Our world has changed almost beyond recognition since the 18th Century. What scientist imagines their experiment will be duplicated when virtually all of the original conditions are altered? Instead of expecting something so improbable we should study the problem, like Adam’s “astronomer”, with an eye for “facts”, not “dogma” The framers lived before Darwin. Were the implications of his work not profound with respect to human government? Surely they were no less radical than the revelations of Copernicus for astronomy. Where is the long overdue re-examination of "political science" that was so clearly indicated by Darwin's theory?
Abuses and Usurpations
I know but one principle or element of government, a constant and perpetual disposition and determination to do to others as we would have others do to us
Justice is the only moral principle of government
John Adams
Not to belabor the obvious but rather in the interest of securing our footing, we should start at the beginning and renew our understanding of the framer’s purposes. What postulates did the framers accept? What durable wisdom did they derive from three thousand years of European and Mediterranean history? On what solid foundations did they erect their work? Do these premises still work for us today? No assumptions should be above review.
Predictably, the framers concurred with Socrates and nearly every other philosopher (except perhaps Machiavelli) by stating unequivocally that Governments are created for the benefit of those to be governed. “Freedom”, “happiness“ , “safety“, “justice“, “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare”; these are the goals of Government. Government is expected to provide these goods, and ultimately derive its legitimacy through the “consent of the governed” who believe that these functions have been fulfilled. This position isn't science, it’s philosophy, but surely this is one article of faith which even today we may all accept. In fact, it seems so incontrovertible as to be scarcely worth mentioning, except for a glaring inconsistency: the elephant in the room which is so painfully illuminated by these words. If government is an institution that provides for the general welfare of a consenting populace, why is our society so unwell, and why is it that our consent is so clearly forced? What are we to do with this information? Is this not an enormous problem? The Republic was instituted to support our health and happiness, and yet:
●
What justice justice when when a small small fractio fraction n of the popula population tion holds holds most most of the wealt wealth h and, by by virtue of this wealth, enjoys an unlimited power to manipulate the political system?
●
What freedom, freedom, happiness happiness and tranquility when the overwhelming overwhelming majority, having little or no wealth, are de facto slaves to these wealthy overlords?
●
What welfa welfare re when when our use of of the earth’s earth’s resour resources ces threat threatens ens to rende renderr the earth earth uninhabitable?
●
What safet safety y when when the commo common n defense defense threa threatens tens to to annihila annihilate te us?
●
What conse consent nt when when fewer fewer than than one citize citizen n in ten appro approves ves of of his electe elected d representatives?
What person would seriously contend this is “a more perfect union”? Are these “the blessings of liberty”? If “Justice is the only moral principle of Government” then how may we call this state of affairs anything other than a horrific failure? If we truly revere the framers, as so many claim to, then we must acknowledge this glaring and horrific discrepancy between the stated purpose of their creation and the reality of the actual existence which we now lead. And if we will admit the obvious, and concede that our Government has become counterproductive to the desired ends, then we must look for some flaw in our Government. It is pointless resorting to the theological interpretation of the Constitution. Adopting a moral tone and blaming plutocrats, political parties, lobbyists, corporations or any other group, is futile. Of course these parties are flawed, we are all flawed, but it is the function of Government to account for these flaws and protect us; from each other and also from ourselves. Remember Madison, the “father” or our Constitution:
If men were angels no government would be necessary
The imagery was religious but the reasoning was purely secular. Government must account for the deficiencies in human nature. When government fails to achieve that purpose it is absurd to blame that failure on the citizens. When the citizens run amuck we must look to the Constitution, not the people. The other view is backwards. The framers experiment has unquestionably gone awry. If we share their wish for social harmony but recognize the yawning chasm between intention and reality which has grown up over the past centuries then we must take action. Otherwise that pit may swallow us. To start, we must abandon the theological interpretation of the Constitution and consider the problems of government like true scientists, with an open mind. Many theories are possible, in the following
pages I advance but one, believing that of all the myriad changes, the central and most important transformation ought to be in how we view ourselves. If, as Darwin insists, we are primates, then we should look to the natural world for answers as readily as we consult any treatise on philosophy. And we should attempt to view our "modern" institutions with the same objectivity as a Margaret Mead, a Jane Goodall or even a Gregor Mendel. Then perhaps we will finally catch a glimpse of those flaws which threaten to destroy us.
“Checks and Balances” revisited
Food, Raiment, and habitations, the indispensable wants of all, are not to be achieved without the continual toil of ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind… The controversy between the rich and the poor, the laborious and the idle, the learned and the ignorant, distinctions as old as the creation, and as extensive as the globe, distinctions which no art or policy, no degree of virtue or philosophy can ever wholly destroy, will continue, and rivalries will spring out of them. These parties will be be represented represented in the the legislature, legislature, and must be balanced, balanced, or one will oppress the other. There will never probably be found any other mode of establishing such an equilibrium , than by constituting the representation of each an independent branch of the legislature, and an independent executive authority, such as that in our government, to be a third branch and a mediator or an arbitrator between them. Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.
The great art of lawgiving consists in balancing the poor against the rich in the legislature.
John Adams
The above statements by Adams may provide a clue as to where the framers’ trial went wrong. Proponents of our political system rarely tire of extolling the great virtue of its “checks and balances”, but as Adams states quite clearly here, the elaborate mechanism of our government was created solely for the purpose of maintaining a social order in which the "rich" are supported by "the continual toil of ninety nine in a hundred". Over two centuries before the Occupy Wall Street protests, the most thoughtful of the framers makes it clear that the Occupiers are absolutely correct in their assessment of American society. Similar explanations of our Constitutional system appear throughout The Federalist . What Adams says here, was once common knowledge among all educated people. It would be unfair to condemn Adams and his peers. Class divisions are as old as civilization and the framers were both wealthy and pragmatic. We cannot reasonably imagine they would have attempted to create a Utopia. They simply wished to design a Republic which tempered the excesses of grinding despotism and revolutionary anarchy. Set in the context of the 18th Century, their thinking was progressive and humane. But is this thinking still appropriate today? Nominally, the virtue of this class balancing act was that each party would be protected. The one percent would be limited in its oppression of the ninety nine; the ninety nine would not overthrow the one. Order would be maintained and property would be secure. Well, we have had order and property has been tremendously secure, but the benefits derived by the ninety nine are surely overstated. The essence of checks and balances was to maintain the status quo. Neither the rich nor the poor could fundamentally alter the system by themselves. But the status quo was not static, it was a dynamic system called Capitalism, and two centuries of buying, selling, research, investment and consolidation have generated an entirely new status quo based on technology the framers never even dreamed of, like automated mass production, nuclear power, artificial
intelligence, WMD's and genetic engineering. Surely this is a transformation worth contemplating. If the entire “art of lawgiving” consists in maintaining an economic system based on manual labor, what happens to Government when manual labor becomes virtually irrelevant? Did this transformation not remove much of the bargaining power once held by those laborers? The “Class System” is not just a worn out Marxist cliché. It is a recognizable feature of the social landscape in every civilization which has ever existed. Adams describes its perpetuation as the central problem in Government. That being the case, is it unreasonable to examine this system in detail? Would it not be scientific to to examine the history behind the central feature of our political system? Is it not at least conceivable that an understanding of the class system may shed light on the self evident failures of our Constitutional government? Can we do this without simply being derided as “Socialists” or, god forbid, “Communists”!? To accomplish this examination, it may be desirable to frame the subject differently and shift from “politics” into “ecology”. Not that these two subject are necessarily so different, but it does fall outside of our habitual ways of treating the subject.
An Ecological theory of Class
How is the nature of man, and of society, and of government, to be studied or known, but in the history and by the experience of human nature in its terrestrial existence?
John Adams
History (or her-story if you prefer) is not just a collection of facts, it’s a narrative. We use selected facts to tell a story that suits our taste. It’s a version of the old tale about three blind
men describing an elephant. Each “sees” an entirely different creature. Similarly, there have been a variety of themes used in historical storytelling:
●
Traditionally there was the the great great man approach, approach, which which concentrated concentrated on the the one percent; major actors like Alexander, Caesar and Charlemagne.
●
There There is a Cyclical Cyclical theory theory which which sugg suggests ests empire empires s and civili civilizati zations ons rise rise and fall, as as if driven by some sort of cosmic pendulum.
●
The notion notion of of Progress Progress repres represents ents a linea linearr historica historicall theme in which which huma humanity nity is constantly improving. This is really just a warmed over version of Christianity in which a futuristic Utopia has been substituted for the second coming.
●
Some histor historians ians concen concentrat trate e on technolo technology. gy. This This is surely relevan relevantt but is it the driving driving force?
●
The Marxist Marxists s concentra concentrated ted on social social class class and techno technology logy both, both, which which seems seems a more balanced approach. But they also accepted the notion of progress and this was problematic
●
Economic Economic historia historians ns follow follow the money. money. Charles Charles Beard Beard made made this school school famous. famous.
●
Popular Popular historia historians ns (like Howard Howard Zinn) Zinn) concentra concentrate te on regular regular people, people, the ninety-n ninety-nine ine percent, which is a nice change from the great man school, but does it explain history?
But has there ever been an Ecological school school of history which explains the evolution of our social and political institutions primarily as selective adaptations allowing some human populations to compete more effectively in the eternal struggle over habitat? Not so far as I know, but I don’t understand why not. We are terrestrial creatures after all; we exist within the context of the earth’s biosphere and are a part of the complex web of ecological relationships
which describe it. We are born, we grow, we reproduce and we die. Our populations compete for habitat and are limited by the available resources like all other creatures. Surely these facts have a bearing on our history. No theory of history is complete. Each is a model, a simplification, an effort to extract the most important elements from the full complexity of available information. An ecological interpretation of the class system may also be a gross simplification, but doesn’t it make sense to at least consider this perspective? Whether we wish to admit it or not, humans are primates. As Jared Diamond has noted, to any impartial observer “humans” are clearly a variety of Chimpanzee. If you go back far enough our ancestors were naked, inarticulate scavengers with little of note to distinguish them from countless other species. Somehow, in the amazingly brief (from a geologic perspective) space of a hundred thousand years or so, we elevated ourselves to our current grandeur. This is the “history” of our “terrestrial existence”. Adams died before Darwin published but surely he would he would have appreciated the implications of Evolution. Human social institutions, like government, did not arise out of a vacuum, nor were they invented by philosophers. Our ecological history created them. Surely this history is relevant to our understanding of these institutions. Today, in the 21st Century, most people seem to feel that the usual rules don’t apply to humans; that whatever our problems may be, they defy analysis in the same terms that we would apply to other species. Well perhaps there is truth in this, a species which manipulates nature on the scale that we do does seem to play by different rules. But it wasn't always like this for us, and if we consider human history from an ecological perspective this may offer us some novel insights. Like every other creature, we adopted social behaviors which suited our means of existence; once useful, now these behaviors have become harmful. Understanding how these social habits arose may be the first step towards controlling them.
Like many other species, humans are competitive, territorial and violent. Modern humans may sometimes belie this statement, but only on a good day. We justify this behavior with customs, codes and legal finery, but in the final analysis we are as primitive as two hyenas fighting over the same carcass. Unsurprisingly, our primate forebears are the same way. Jane Goodall had to wait a few years before witnessing her first full-on Chimp “genocide”, but now, after decades of close observation, we know that Chimps are no nicer than humans. They lack weapons but they’re hardly pacifists. And those distant human ancestors who followed the Chimps weren't so different either. Jared Diamond, who has spent decades observing the modern remnants of Paleolithic hunter/gatherer populations, has also noted a violent streak. To paraphrase loosely, he suggests that it was a major event in human history when people first learned not to to kill strangers on sight! sight ! These indigenous cultures are already far removed from Goodall’s Chimps, but there is certainly an undeniable family resemblance. The Earths resources are finite and life is a violent affair. Each species struggles for its niche in the total environment, specific populations compete with neighboring groups for a domain within that hard-won niche and individual creatures fight for place within their respective populations. These considerations apply to Chimpanzees, they applied to Paleolithic primates (whom we arbitrarily choose to call “human”) and they applied equally to those Neolithic populations which stumbled upon agriculture. Today, we manipulate our environment with godlike powers, but our social forms remain the product of an earlier time when humanity was still weak, and daily violence was an unavoidable fact of life. If we wish to be less violent today we should consider how we got that way in the first place.
***
F
ollowing the last ice age, our ancestors learned of a new way to acquire food.
Agriculture allowed humans humans to extract sustenance sustenance from the earth earth more efficiently than hunting hunting and gathering; it was a highly successful adaptation for our species, giving us a huge advantage over every other creature. We are told this shift to agriculture was the beginning of “Civilization” and clearly it was the beginning of something enormous (whatever we choose to call it) but it was not the end of our subservience to the fundamental requirements of ecology. Every population (of any species) will breed and multiply until it reaches a limit where the birth rate and death rate balance each other out. There are fluctuations of course, but behind these fluctuations there is a fundamental ecological relationship based on the full complexity of the earths organic and inorganic systems (in essence, everything from variations in the jet stream to the latest mutation of some microbe). For humans, agriculture altered these relationships fantastically, but our species was still subject to the eternal necessity of balancing its population. Many of the factors limiting population growth can be labeled as environmental - like weather, predation and topography - but in addition to these externally imposed imposed limits there are also self-imposed limits. limits. Some creatures will eat the offspring of their rivals, some will eat their own offspring, own offspring, and “war” is known even to ants. Consciously or not, each species understands the nature of limits and will use violence against its own kind in the service of necessity; either to limit competing groups inhabiting a contiguous domain or to eliminate competing individuals within a population. Jane Goodall witnessed this behavior among Chimpanzees, Jared Diamond has noted it among hunter/gatherers, and all of the same forces continued to apply even after humans gained agriculture.
If anything, agriculture would only have served served to intensify our violent tendencies! Hunter/gatherers Hunter/gatherers don’t achieve the population density of agricultural humans so there are fewer opportunities for conflict between groups, and when hunter/gatherers do experience conflict there is presumably a good chance that one group may move, rather than fight. But agricultural humans are tied to a specific geographic domain along with their crops, and agricultural humans achieve far greater population densities than their hunter/gatherer relatives, so serious conflict between groups seems much more likely. In conflicts between hunter/gatherers and farmers, the farmers will normally have the advantage because of their greater population density and organizational skills. The hunter/gatherers are outnumbered and presumably retreat into the wild. But when the hunter/gatherers have all been displaced and a regions agricultural potential has been fully exploited by various populations of farmers, then the neighboring agricultural populations will eventually come into conflict when all of the good land has been occupied. It’s inevitable; oftentimes disease or famine may control the population, precluding the necessity for inter-group conflict, but at some point two agricultural societies expanded into one another. The resolution of this conflict had to be violent. There is an account in one of the classic histories describing an armed incursion by Gaullist settlers into territory claimed by the Romans. When confronted by an envoy over this breach of Roman sovereignty the Gaul leader scoffs at their contrived legalistic reasoning: We take this land by right of the ancient law which says that men who are hungry will cultivate land which is empty. Evict us if you dare, but you may expect to pay dearly for this earth. These Northern “barbarians” had a much clearer grasp of reality than the “civilized” Romans. There is little reason to believe this encounter was anything other than a typical event in human history.
Form follows function. Human agricultural societies are designed to do two things:
●
extrac extractt sust susten enan ance ce from from the the eart earth h
●
defend defend (or (or extend extend)) the domain domain of of a given given populat population. ion.
The specific behavioral features which maximize these functions are universal to all agricultural societies across the globe and they are as fundamental to civilization civilizati on as the wheel and fire. Job specialization and regimentation; every society has them, and they were (for most of human history) absolutely essential. The peasantry, comprising the bulk of society, worked diligently to produce as much food as possible, but despite their superior numbers, this group was always controlled by an aristocracy of professional warriors who protected the domain (or realm) from competing groups. This aristocracy relieved the peasants of their agricultural surplus and also pressed them into service as rank and file foot soldiers when needed. A class of lawyers, priests, traders and artisans supplemented this arrangement, but most people were peasants, while a relative few concentrated their full energies on warfare and government. Human society was organized in conformance with the principles of ecology. Population levels would be regulated either by famine, disease or violence. Famine and disease may have been equally important from a quantitative perspective, but violence provided the organizing principle for our social structure. The exploitation of the peasantry was the foundation of all military power, and military competition has been the backdrop for all of human history. Right or wrong, good and evil; these concepts were irrelevant. Violence was essential to the operation and maintenance of this social organism. The military aristocracy pressed the peasantry as hard as possible because their surplus supported the army. If they failed to do this, some stronger
neighbor would invade and do it for them. In fact, there is archaeological evidence suggesting that humans were actually much healthier, on average, before the before the advent of “civilization”; in other words, the aristocracy often pushed the peasantry to the brink of starvation. The stock image of the downtrodden peasant has a real basis in fact. Progress and Civilization, if such things truly exist, came with a very heavy price tag.
***
By now, this arrangement undoubtedly looks familiar, and the political overtones are inescapable. Yes, it is the same class system alluded to by Adams. In recent centuries the aristocracy of professional soldiers has been displaced by a less colorful class of Capitalists, but the regimentation of society for the purposes of oppression and conquest is a fact "as old as creation". It’s not just a cliché, the class system is as real as death and taxes and gravity. The bulk of humanity have been exploited and frequently slaughtered in the service of this social adaptation since the beginning of history. Once agriculture was discovered, this behavior became a necessity. Farming allowed humans to expropriate a much greater share of the earth's resources, but the price for this success was a grinding mechanistic social system which keeps "civilization" on a perpetual war footing while simultaneously reducing most humans to the level of interchangeable parts in this evolutionary automaton. It is a machine designed for conquest and subjection, without conscience or remorse. Is this the system that the framers were so intent of protecting? Is the maintenance of this brutalizing social machine the “central problem of government”? If there is even a shadow of truth in this supposition then surely we must acknowledge that the perpetuation of this social automaton in the 21st Century represents a dire threat to our health and happiness. In the
framers era, this class system remained the essential basis for all society; they sought to make the system run as smoothly as possible and we may admire them for their effort. But contemplate for a moment the manifest insanity of allowing such a mechanism to continue running in a world where all of the original ecologic parameters have been radically transformed and humanity now holds the power to mold its environment and manage its population with science, not violence. What purpose is served by war today? Why must there be oppression in the midst of plenty? Regard the modern world and ask yourself; does this not look like the work of a machine run amuck?
***
Despite the straightforward logic of this argument for a an ecological theory of class and notwithstanding the framers own documented assertions regarding the class-oriented function of checks and balances, most people will probably find it very difficult to reconcile this view of the U.S., as a conservative bastion of ancient class divisions, with the more accepted perception of our Republic as a progressive product of the Enlightenment; a modern bulwark of individual liberty. But regardless of the stirring language in the Declaration of Independence, Independence , was the Republic created by the Constitution really Constitution really so very different from the Feudal forms of government which still prevailed in Europe at that time? The French peasantry which revolted just a few years after the Convention clearly fit the description of an oppressed agricultural class, but were the Pennsylvania farmers of the Whiskey Rebellion really so different from their peers on the opposite side of the Atlantic? No doubt the Revolution was a watershed moment in American history and certainly life in North America was was tremendously tremendously different different from life life in Europe, Europe, but were were these differences differences of degree degree
and detail or did they signify an actual fundamental divide between two wholly different systems? Yes, the colonists enjoyed a larger degree of personal freedom and better economic prospects than most European peasants. The lightly populated habitat of North America offered a vast range for agricultural expansion with little of the population pressure experienced by Europeans living on a continent that had been filled up for centuries. Also, the colonists were, in the early years, largely absolved from much of the Royal taxation burdening their peers on the other side of the Atlantic. And in addition to these advantages, the oppressive Catholic and Anglican churches were largely largely excluded excluded from the Colonies. But still, in the final analysis analysis the the republic created by our Constitution was an economic and military enterprise, like any fief or kingdom The several states agreed to joint taxation for the purposes of a common defense; reasonably assuming they might have to defend their territory from various European powers, or put down a rising of the peasantry (like Shay‘s Rebellion). It was a compact created in secrecy by a group of the most powerful men in the Confederacy and the results were obnoxious to many of the farmers who bore the brunt of the burden for supporting this venture. Some, like the Whiskey Rebellion farmers in Pennsylvania, even resorted to violence, but the military aristocracy defeated them easily. No, it wasn’t the French Revolution, but the fact that wealthy individuals on this side of the Atlantic feared an American version of the French Terror suggests that there were deep class divisions here as well. Despite all the mythology of American "Exceptional-ism" it seems as though the principal differences between the east and west shores of the Atlantic in the late 18th Century were primarily a matter of degree. A new population in a previously unexploited habitat enjoyed possibilities not open to the rival population remaining in the ancient environs, but the
fundamental nature of social organization was essentially the same. The most substantial difference between the two populations appears to have been the means by which they chose their rulers. In continental Europe, inherited titles were the norm and elective positions the exception; in the U.S. there were to be no inherited titles, the very idea was outlawed. All rulers would be elected. This final difference, on which so much blood and ink have been expended, is universally regarded as something more than a mere detail. Americans across the political spectrum regard their voting rights as a sacred privilege marking them a free people; the keystone of their Civil Liberties and a great gift from the Enlightenment. But this hallowed institution seems to co-exist very easily with obscene extremes of wealth and poverty. It has been no obstacle to slavery, conquest or oppression. Why, even Adolf Hitler was elected once, and in its original usage, the word “dictator” referred to an elective office elective office in Rome. From the Revolution to the present, Americans have elected more than a hundred Congresses and dozens of Presidents. Through all of this we have consistently maintained a class structure with an astronomical gulf between rich and poor, and we have rarely gone more than a few years without engaging in a war somewhere. Superficially, it does not seem that our society is so exceptional or our institutions so novel. Yes our middle-class was perhaps larger and more prominent than any previous society and we can probably thank the framers for this fact. Checks and balances may indeed have afforded some protection to the 99%. But if we’re looking at the big picture, the rudiments of the class system are clearly present. Based on results, it’s not obvious that voting is such a revolutionary act or that our society is so unique as many would believe. Is it possible that most of the advantages enjoyed by Americans are largely a product of our unique geographical heritage and that these advantages have relatively little to do with our
political institutions? institutions? Is it possible possible that our our society is much more more traditional traditional than generally generally acknowledged? Is it conceivable that Voting , the heart of our political process, is not actually a progressive progressive practice? practice? Perhaps Perhaps we may even describe voting as an ancient practice; an evolutionary adaptation at the very heart of the class system. Certainly this might go a long ways toward explaining some of our more intractable problems.
Politics
Democracy… I have always been grieved by the gross abuse of this respectable word. One party speaks speaks of it as the most most amiable, amiable, venerable, venerable, indeed, indeed, as the sole object object of its adoration; adoration; the other as the sole object of its scorn, abhorrence, and execration. Neither party, in my opinion, know what they say.
Is not representation an essential and fundamental departure from democracy? Is not every representative government in the world an aristocracy?
Permit me to ask whether the descent of lands and goods and chattels does not constitute a hereditary order as decidedly as the descent of stars and garters?
There is a natural and unchangeable inconvenience in all popular elections… he who has the deepest purse or the fewest scruples will generally prevail
The multitude have always been credulous, and the few are always artful.
John Adams
Consider (hypothetically) the origins of the class system in the first agricultural society many thousands of years ago. A series of good crops had swelled the population until warfare between two competing populations was inevitable. Bloodshed was imminent. This prospect raises an interesting question; who created and led the first army? We may not know his name or what he looked like but we can certainly make a respectable guess about his character, personality and m. o.. He was the shrewdest, toughest son of a bitch in the group; able to prod, con, intimidate, inspire or simply pummel his peers into battle. Most importantly, he had the foresight and calculation to understand that conflict was inevitable and the element of surprise a powerful ally. He may actually have used this solid rational argument to persuade a few people, but others required a more creative approach. For those ruled by fear, he painted a horrific picture of the devastation they would experience by waiting for the enemy to attack first. For the greedy and hungry, he held out the promise of new lands to till. For the lustful he described the women they would enslave. The weak, he simply had to intimidate. And for those who were truly ambitious, his peers in violence and cunning, he held out the prospect of shared rule over this new dominion (some of these individuals died mysteriously in the days following the great battle, but others went on to become his trusted lieutenants). And with every audience he emphasized the ugliness and the backwardness of the “barbarians” on the other side of the river/hill/forest etc…As superior and virtuous beings, they would easily prevail over those savages.
Was this individual not a politician?…
Was this process not a political campaign?…
Was he not “elected” by his peers to be their commander and chief?…
Has this
process really changed so much in ten thousand years?
***
If you can accept the premise that ecological forces have been the primary determinant of human social behavior then the existence of this archetypal leader seems a foregone conclusion. Beginning in the Neolithic era the principal function of social organization became the acquisition and defense of a group domain: agricultural land. With myriad human populations all competing for this resource only those groups with the most effective strategy could succeed. Job specialization, social stratification and economic exploitation, all in the service of military efficiency, were inevitable. The individual human with the strength and cleverness to facilitate this process served an essential role. To paraphrase Nietzsche (correctly I hope), these individuals were the "architects of violence who built states". We hate politicians now but in the beginning they served an important purpose. Of course these leaders did not appear magically overnight nor was their tenure always long lasting. They were creatures of the political process, fleeting figures who occasionally earned the lasting tribute of a few lines or pages in recorded history but were most often forgotten like all the other millions who came before us. The only thing durable in politics is the act itself, certainly not the actors. There is an inescapable timeless logic to this process of political organization. Consider the following key points..
fundamentals of political behavior
1. Size matters. A larger group will ordinarily conquer a smaller group. Size demands organization (i.e. - leadership and a chain of command). The imposition of this organizational hierarchy may be entirely violent (i.e. - the largest members of the group impose their will) but violence begets violence and the larger the group the greater the burden which the frictional forces of anarchy will impose. In a social machine designed for the application of external violence, internal violence internal violence saps efficiency and threatens the decomposition of the group. A successful group must impose obedience with a bare minimum of overt violence.
2. Majority rule is the most efficient (least violent)) procedure for imposing universal obedience. All members of the group group capable capable of military military service (all those who represent represent a potential potential anarchic threat) participate in the group decision process. Any position adopted by a majority receives the acquiescence of the minority, who are outnumbered and recognize submission as the safest course; for themselves personally and also presumably for the group. There is nothing inherently moral about this procedure. It is a process of thinly sublimated violence, barely removed from civil war.
3. Majority rule is about individual and group survival in a world of danger and scarcity. Dominance of the population over external rivals is key, but so too is the victory of particular factions in the internal struggle over finite resources. Fear and hatred are the principal currency of this contest. Logic may intrude but emotion ordinarily prevails. Individual political actors are ruthlessly rational in their social calculations, but the material they work with is human emotion. To pretend that politics (or economics for that matter) is driven primarily by rational self interest
is an absurd fantasy. And to the extent that reason does intrude it is the reason of pure selfishness. Philosophy, justice, virtue and altruism have virtually no place in politics. Once again, there is nothing inherently moral about this process. Quite the opposite.
4. Military efficiency requires unanimous obedience. Once a consensus has been reached everybody falls into line. Dissent, once a harmless or even beneficial behavior (among hunter gatherers) becomes a direct threat to the group survival. Dissenters are rarely tolerated.
5. There are risks associated with leadership, a position which attracts violence from both internal and external competitors, but the risks are compensated by the rewards associated with social status. Opportunities for breeding are greater and the status of the parents is (to some degree) transmissible to the offspring. The chief has his wives, the king his harem or concubines, the politician his interns. This behavior is as old as mankind.
6. All leadership has its roots in this political process. Even hereditary leadership (monarchy) has its origins in popular politics. The first monarch in a line (no matter how great a warrior) is also always a politician and all descendants must always protect their political position. Otherwise a usurper will likely prevail. In terms of moral "legitimacy" (which is indistinguishable indistinguishable from popularity under the system of majority rule) a tenth generation monarch may exceed a first term President. From a purely moral perspective, a king has as much right to his office as any elected president.
7. Victors will attempt to consolidate consolidate their position by limiting the political rights of losers. Whenever possible, weaker social groups will be reduced to slavery. The specialization of
warfare to include cavalry and armor was probably the basis of one such disfranchisement. Racial, ethnic and religious minorities are also routinely deprived of rights. Economic superiority too can frequently enable even a technical minority to to engineer political victory and disfranchisement!
8. Conversely, rights may be extended to previously excluded groups (freed slaves, women and the propertyless classes). This expansion of the political class lends an air of democratic legitimacy to the proceedings but politics remains an amoral process in which power, deceit and emotion ordinarily prevail.
9. The interests of leadership are not necessarily synonymous with those of the common population. In the early Neolithic era, when individual populations were smaller and existence more tenuous, the survival of the group and the survival of the leadership class were probably one in the same, but as time passed and populations became larger and more established political survival of the leadership became a separate priority from group defense. A small city/state may be vulnerable to total annihilation but a larger nation much less so; in the latter case the greater threat to leadership comes from usurpation not invasion. Any policies which consolidate power may be employed, even when they are demonstrably harmful to the group at large. Interminable fruitless wars and the deliberate incitement of internal factions (ie "divide and conquer strategies ) come to mind. Machiavelli gave this behavior its handbook.
10. The separation of the leadership class from the general population for purposes of procreation (the institution of Royalty) confirms the preceding point. As long as royals breed (primarily) with other royals then (from a functional standpoint) the royals are parasites and the
commoners are their host. Aristocratic indifference and snobbishness may be seen as healthy traits (for the aristocracy). In the current age the institution of royalty has been abandoned but intermarriage among the wealthy is the norm and marriage outside of this convention is fairly unusual. From the standpoint of pure function, is the one percent not a form of royalty?
The foregoing stark description of majority rule as a blunt, blind evolutionary instrument, bears little relation to the morally righteous "deliberative Democracy" that we learned about from our middle school civics teachers. The real world is more nuanced than theory of course and perhaps that fairytale vision of civilized political discourse has existed for fleeting moments here and there, but doesn't the Darwinian construct correspond much more closely to the generally observed unpleasant phenomena which we regard in the news every day? Does it not also seem to complement Adam's theory fairly well? Recognizing the social warfare at the heart of class society he attempts to establish a lasting truce by giving each side a permanently recognized institution. Of course it's still better to possess political rights within this system than to be excluded entirely (like entirely (like a medieval serf or a contemporary "guest worker"), but the Darwinian interpretation (and much practical experience) both suggests that suffrage is of exceedingly limited exceedingly limited value. There are no guarantees that the results will correspond with anything approximating reason or justice. And if the political process looks more like civil war than a civilized debate then this follows perfectly from the evolutionary explanation. Yet most people shrug off all objections to the political process as pointless. They insist there's no alternative. But this position doesn't bear scrutiny.
Not Politics
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried . tried .
Winston Churchill
A lie repeated repeated with sufficient frequency frequency is often confused for the truth. truth. The assertion assertion that that democratic politics represent an absolute moral good with no conceivable alternative is a statement falling into this category. People typically like to quote Winston Churchill when making this claim. Let us consider this position seriously. First, First, how can something be an absolute good when so much that follows from it is clearly evil? As a confirmed agnostic I do not use the word "evil" lightly, but how else to describe the obscene levels of economic inequality, environmental devastation, endless warfare, chronic incarceration, ignorance and sloth which characterize our society? All of these sins, for which we have any number of convenient excuses and scapegoats, must ultimately be attributed to our Democratic system and the "law of the land" which enables such atrocities to exist. Second, Second, when it comes to delegating State authority for the purpose of composing government institutions there are at least three well known ways of doing this without the the intervention of politics and voting. Politics is not the not the only way to organize a society. Below are the alternatives.
Royalty - Kings did not appear all over the planet by accident. The stability of monarchy was often preferable to the anarchy of politics. In many times and places an accident of genetics was found superior to the vicissitudes of political conflict. But it does not flatter the vanity of the citizens to be removed from the choice of their leaders; and in an age of urban living,
widespread literacy and mass communication royalty has been all but extinguished. This does not prove that politicians are more responsive than kings to the needs of their subjects, it is simply an accident of the modern age.
Merit - Confucius instituted the first known civil service meritocracy well before Christ. It lasted into the 19th Century and now has imitators around the globe. Public examinations for positions in Government service are a well established fact for most government employment outside of the legislature. In other words, the great majority of government workers are chosen on the basis of demonstrated merit, not a political contest. It is only the handful of "public servants" who write our laws that have managed to elude this trend towards professionalism in public service.
Chance - In 5th Century b.c.e. Athens, a lottery was used to fill most government positions. We still use it today; for jurors and also (until recently) for soldiers. Montesquieu called it the natural choice for a Democracy.
Machines - In an age of computers and artificial intelligence this fourth option is at least worthy of mention. Few humans would accept the reign of a digital king perhaps, but it is at least conceivable that such a thing could exist (in a parallel universe perhaps)
Politics and majority rule possess no intrinsic moral or practical superiority ! superiority ! It is simply one of one of several mechanisms which play a role in human government. Merit, Chance and Royalty are other mechanisms which have been resorted to but politics (thus far) has always been the dominant constant. It is the gravitational force to which all other mechanisms have been subservient. The usurpation or deposition of kings and emperors by the forces of politics has
been as dependable as the storms of winter, and the role of jurors and civil servants has been that of a bit part in the larger drama of politics. But what if politics itself were to lose its primacy and some combination combination of merit and chance chance became became the reigning reigning force in in human government instead?
In the pre-scientific era Politics was arguably the only way of maintaining the class system which was central to the preservation of the human ecological dynamic. With myriad populations all competing for the same resources only the strongest and cleverest could prevail. Politics is a form of natural selection by which the strongest and cleverest homo sapiens lead their respective populations in the larger global competition. But, to the extent that this competition has (in recent millennia) been tempered by an impulse towards stability and justice (rather than expansion and subjection) politics has been supplemented by these other mechanisms (merit and chance). Now (under the influence of science) Homo sapiens have arrived at a point where stability is essential, and further competition borders on suicide. Has the time finally arrived when politics must become subservient to these other more recent mechanisms? What would this mean? How might such an epochal shift be facilitated?
This is an enormous question, probably best tackled elsewhere. For now, in this essay, let it merely be said that it is quite plausible (theoretically) to construct a government in which political behavior is largely suppressed. To a great degree political behavior defines us, it is integral to our species, but if we choose (at long last) to consciously recognize the severe dangers associated with it we may then construct institutions which deliberately hinder it. Chance and Chance and Merit would would unquestionably play a central role in these institutions (hereditary leadership, probably not) but the details are open to debate . With the experience of the past few centuries
to inform us, it no longer seems reasonable to imagine that Republican institutions and universal suffrage will lead us to social justice and environmental sanity. These are relatively new priorities for Homo Sapiens, reflecting an enormous transformation in our relationship to the planet. Does it not make sense that a staggering alteration of our relationship to the physical environment might also necessitate a major restructuring of our social institutions?
Conclusion
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal
Emma Goldman
Today, there is profound universal disillusionment with politics and government but virtually no serious conversation regarding potential alternatives to our enshrined Constitutional system. The sternest talk comes from those who would amend the Constitution to protect campaign finance reform, but there were multiple efforts on this front prior to Citizens United and the results were unimpressive. Anyhow, to "take the money out of politics" is a laudable goal but would require much more than just campaign reform. It would also be necessary to address the "revolving door" between government and industry, the "free speech" of "independent" groups (an impossibly murky Constitutional swamp) and the simple fact that ninety-nine out of a hundred American don't have the financial independence or leisure to pursue a career in politics
(that just leaves the one percent doesn't it?). By the time politics is truly reformed reformed it may no longer be recognizable as politics.
The prevailing attitude imagines that politics is an inherently noble pursuit and everything would be fine if only we could purify the process by removing the corruption of currency. But a Darwinian interpretation of history suggests that corruption is corruption is the essential nature of politics! If we understand "corruption" as the pursuit of naked self interest by all available means then this pretty well defines politics; it is nothing more or less than a relatively non-violent process of civil warfare. To imagine that the results will ever correspond with anything remotely resembling social justice or environmental sanity is to expect something which has never been and never will be. Those rare occasions when we came anywhere near to these goals may be explained as aberrations; the exception which proves the rule. The violence and oppression of the class system are as old as creation, and politics is politics is the process which keeps it all running smoothly. Yes, it's better to have political rights than not, and universal suffrage was (arguably) a step forward in human social evolution, but there is absolutely no evidence or reasoning to support the notion that the existence of universal suffrage will ever change the fundamental nature or outcome of the political process. Emma Goldman was right, If voting represented a threat to the status quo it would be illegal.
John Adams believed that "justice is the only principle of government". He also believed we would only achieve this principle by studying government with the objectivity and dispassionate removal of an "astronomer", but has anyone actually ever bothered to follow this sensible advice? Probably not if they wanted to keep their job. The social sciences are all inherently subversive but dissent generally leads to unemployment and self censorship provides the best
"competitive advantage" for scholars hoping to evolve to the level of tenure. Still, at a point in Homo Sapien development where our species very survival is something of a question mark surely the time has finally come to take Adams seriously.
What would scientific reform actually entail? How do we create a truly just and sustainable society? Clearly this is an open question with no definitive or final answers to be forthcoming. But surely too, at the very least we must expand the horizons of our inquiry to acknowledge the fact that "evolution" and "politics" are not necessarily unrelated subjects. Then perhaps we may finally learn to live like true civilized beings and construct a government which realizes Adams principle of justice. Until then, so far as I'm concerned, homo sapiens will remain nothing more than a most exotic and dangerous variety of chimpanzee.
Afterword
There is a widespread (and in my opinion misguided) notion that Progressive goals may someday be achieved in the arena of politics. Education, organizing and political reform are seen as the keys to this final victory; patience and perseverance, the virtues that will get us there. But it is my contention that Democratic Politics represents an unwinnable war, an evolutionary dead end. Justice and sanity will never be the outcome. Human behavior is a constant (at least in the short term) and politics is a process which elevates the most destructive aspects of that behavior to the level of high art. If we would see our species survive and prosper in the coming centuries we must acknowledge this fact and begin a substantive conversation about rational alternatives to the status quo of our existing political institutions.
If have any openness to such a viewpoint and have comments then I’d love to hear from you. Rather than using the DKOS forum, however, I would ask that you email me.
