The brand-new money was to be made available for new welfare programmes along with brand-new battleships.
In 1911 Lloyd George was successful in putting through Parliament his National Insurance Act, making provision for illness and invalidism, and this was followed by his Joblessness Insurance Act. Historian Peter Weiler argues: Although still partially informed by older Liberal concerns for character, self-reliance, and the capitalist market, this legislation nevertheless, marked a considerable shift in Liberal techniques to the state and social reform, approaches that later governments would slowly broaden and that would become the welfare state after the 2nd World War.
was not how much the state left individuals alone, but whether it provided the capability to fill themselves as individuals. Contrasting Old Liberalism with New Liberalism, David Lloyd George kept in mind in a 1908 speech the following: [Old Liberals] used the natural discontent of the individuals with the poverty and precariousness of the methods of subsistence as a motive power to win for them a much better, more influential, and more honourable status in the citizenship of their native land.
It is real that guy can not live by bread alone. It is similarly real that a male can not live without bread. The Liberals suffered in opposition for a years while the coalition of Salisbury and Chamberlain held power. The 1890s were ruined by infighting in between the three principal successors to Gladstone, party leader William Harcourt, previous prime minister Lord Rosebery, and Gladstone’s individual secretary, John Morley.
Replacing Harcourt as party leader was Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Harcourt’s resignation briefly muted the turmoil in the party, but the beginning of the 2nd Boer War soon almost broke the party apart, with Rosebery and a circle of advocates consisting of essential future Liberal figures H. H. Asquith, Edward Grey and Richard Burdon Haldane forming an inner circle called the Liberal Imperialists that supported the federal government in the prosecution of the war.
Quickly increasing to prominence amongst the Pro-Boers was David Lloyd George, a reasonably new MP and a master of rhetoric, who took benefit of having a national phase to speak up on a controversial problem to make his name in the celebration. Harcourt and Morley also agreed this group, though with somewhat various aims.
The party was saved after Salisbury’s retirement in 1902 when his follower, Arthur Balfour, pressed a series of unpopular initiatives such as the Education Act 1902 and Joseph Chamberlain required a brand-new system of protectionist tariffs. Campbell-Bannerman was able to rally the celebration around the conventional liberal platform of open market and land reform and led them to the biggest election victory in their history.
Although he administered over a large bulk, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was eclipsed by his ministers, most notably H. H. Asquith at the Exchequer, Edward Grey at the Foreign Office, Richard Burdon Haldane at the War Workplace and David Lloyd George at the Board of Trade. Campbell-Bannerman retired in 1908 and died right after.
Lloyd George prospered Asquith at the Exchequer, and remained in turn succeeded at the Board of Trade by Winston Churchill, a recent defector from the Conservatives. The 1906 general election also represented a shift to the left by the Liberal Party. According to Rosemary Rees, almost half of the Liberal MPs chosen in 1906 were helpful of the ‘New Liberalism’ (which promoted federal government action to improve individuals’s lives),) while claims were made that “five-sixths of the Liberal celebration remain wing.” Other historians, however, have questioned the level to which the Liberal Celebration experienced a leftward shift; according to Robert C.
However, important junior offices were held in the cabinet by what Duncan Tanner has called “authentic Brand-new Liberals, Centrist reformers, and Fabian collectivists,” and much legislation was pushed through by the Liberals in federal government. This included the regulation of working hours, National Insurance and well-being. A political battle appeared over the People’s Spending plan and led to the passage of an act ending the power of the Home of Lords to block legislation.
As an outcome, Asquith was forced to present a new 3rd House Rule bill in 1912.
Since the House of Lords no longer had the power to block the costs, the Unionist’s Ulster Volunteers led by Sir Edward Carson, released a project of opposition that consisted of the risk of armed resistance in Ulster and the danger of mass resignation of their commissions by army officers in Ireland in 1914 (see Curragh Occurrence).
The country appeared to be on the verge of civil war when the First World War broke out in August 1914. Historian George Dangerfield has actually argued that the multiplicity of crises in 1910 to 1914, prior to the war broke out, so weakened the Liberal union that it marked the.
The Liberal Celebration may have made it through a brief war, but the totality of the Great War called for steps that the Celebration had actually long turned down. The result was the permanent destruction of the ability of the Liberal Party to lead a federal government. Historian Robert Blake explains the predicament: [T] he Liberals were typically the party of liberty of speech, conscience and trade.
[…] Liberals were neither unwavering nor unanimous about conscription, censorship, the Defence of the Realm Act, intensity towards aliens and pacifists, direction of labour and industry. The Conservatives […] had no such misgivings. Blake further notes that it was the Liberals, not the Conservatives who required the ethical outrage of Belgium to justify going to war, while the Conservatives called for intervention from the start of the crisis on the premises of realpolitik and the balance of power.
Asquith was blamed for the bad British performance in the first year. Considering that the Liberals ran the war without consulting the Conservatives, there were heavy partisan attacks. However, even Liberal commentators were puzzled by the absence of energy at the top. At the time, public opinion was extremely hostile, both in the media and in the street, versus any young male in civilian clothes and identified as a slacker.…
In the 1874 basic election Gladstone was defeated by the Conservatives
under Benjamin Disraeli during a sharp economic recession. He formally resigned as Liberal leader and was been successful by the Marquess of Hartington, however he quickly altered his mind and returned to active politics. He strongly disagreed with Disraeli’s pro-Ottoman diplomacy and in 1880 he conducted the first outdoor mass-election project in Britain, called the Midlothian project.
Hartington delivered his location and Gladstone resumed office. Amongst the consequences of the Third Reform Act (1884) was the offering of the vote to many Catholics in Ireland. In the 1885 general election the Irish Parliamentary Celebration held the balance of power in the Home of Commons, and demanded Irish House Guideline as the price of support for a continued Gladstone ministry.
The Irish Home Guideline expense proposed to offer all owners of Irish land a possibility to offer to the state at a price equal to twenty years’ purchase of the leas and enabling renters to acquire the land. Irish nationalist reaction was combined, Unionist viewpoint was hostile, and the election addresses throughout the 1886 election exposed English radicals to be versus the costs also.
Even More, House Rule had actually not been promised in the Liberals’ election manifesto, therefore the impression was provided that Gladstone was purchasing Irish support in a rather desperate manner to hang on to power. The result was a disastrous split in the Liberal Celebration, and heavy defeat in the 1886 election at the hands of Lord Salisbury, who was supported by the breakaway Liberal Unionist Celebration.
Historically, the aristocracy was divided between Conservatives and Liberals.
Nevertheless, when Gladstone committed to home rule for Ireland, Britain’s upper classes mainly deserted the Liberal celebration, providing the Conservatives a large irreversible bulk in your house of Lords. Following the Queen, Upper Class in London mostly ostracized house rulers and Liberal clubs were badly split.
It teamed up with and ultimately merged into the Conservative party. The Gladstonian liberals in 1891 embraced The Newcastle Programme that consisted of home guideline for Ireland, disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, tighter controls on the sale of alcohol, significant extension of factory guideline and different democratic political reforms.
A significant long-lasting effect of the Third Reform Act was the increase of Lib-Lab prospects, in the absence of any dedicated Labour Celebration. The Act split all county constituencies (which were represented by several MPs) into single-member constituencies, roughly corresponding to population patterns. In areas with working class majorities, in particular coal-mining locations, Lib-Lab prospects were popular, and they got sponsorship and endorsement from trade unions.
The Third Reform Act likewise assisted in the demise of the Whig old guard: in two-member constituencies, it was common to combine a Whig and a radical under the Liberal banner. After the Third Reform Act, fewer Whigs were selected as prospects. A broad variety of interventionist reforms were presented by the 18921895 Liberal government.
Arnstein concludes: Notable as the Gladstonian reforms had actually been, they had almost all remained within the nineteenth-century Liberal custom of gradually removing the spiritual, economic, and political barriers that prevented males of diverse creeds and classes from exercising their private talents in order to improve themselves and their society. As the third quarter of the century waned, the vital bastions of Victorianism still held firm: respectability; a federal government of aristocrats and gentlemen now influenced not just by middle-class merchants and makers however likewise by industrious working people; a prosperity that seemed to rest mostly on the tenets of laissez-faire economics; and a Britannia that ruled the waves and many a rule beyond.
Gladstone’s assistance for House Rule deeply divided the party, and it lost its upper and upper-middle-class base, while keeping assistance among Protestant nonconformists and the Celtic fringe. Historian R. C. K. Ensor reports that after 1886, the main Liberal Party was deserted by practically the whole whig peerage and the great majority of the upper-class and upper-middle-class members.
Ensor notes that, “London society, following the known views of the Queen,
practically ostracized house rulers.” The new Liberal leader was the ineffectual Lord Rosebery. He led the celebration to a heavy defeat in the 1895 general election. The Liberal Celebration lacked a combined ideological base in 1906. It contained various contradictory and hostile factions, such as imperialists and advocates of the Boers; near-socialists and laissez-faire classical liberals; suffragettes and challengers of females’s suffrage; antiwar elements and fans of the military alliance with France.
Nevertheless, the non-conformists were losing assistance amidst society at large and played a lesser function in party affairs after 1900. The celebration, moreover, also included Irish Catholics, and secularists from the labour motion. Numerous Conservatives (consisting of Winston Churchill) had just recently protested versus high tariff moves by the Conservatives by changing to the anti-tariff Liberal camp, however it was uncertain how lots of old Conservative traits they brought along, specifically on military and marine issues.
The working-class aspect was moving rapidly towards the recently emerging Labour Celebration. One unifying component was extensive contract on the use of politics and Parliament as a device to update and enhance society and to reform politics. All Liberals were outraged when Conservatives utilized their majority in your home of Lords to obstruct reform legislation.
The late nineteenth century saw the introduction of New Liberalism within the Liberal Party, which advocated state intervention as a means of ensuring freedom and removing barriers to it such as poverty and unemployment. The policies of the New Liberalism are now known as social liberalism. The New Liberals consisted of intellectuals like L.
Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson. They saw private liberty as something achievable just under favourable social and economic circumstances. In their view, the poverty, squalor, and lack of knowledge in which many individuals lived made it difficult for flexibility and uniqueness to grow. New Liberals believed that these conditions might be ameliorated just through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, and interventionist state.…
The Liberal Celebration was one of the two significant political celebrations
in the UK with the opposing Conservative Celebration in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The party arose from an alliance of Whigs and free trade- supporting Peelites and the reformist Radicals in the 1850s. By the end of the 19th century, it had actually formed 4 governments under William Gladstone.
Under prime ministers Henry Campbell-Bannerman (19051908) and H. H. Asquith (19081916), the Liberal Party passed the welfare reforms that developed a fundamental British well-being state. Although Asquith was the party’s leader, its dominant figure was David Lloyd George. Asquith was overwhelmed by the wartime function of union prime minister and Lloyd George replaced him as prime minister in late 1916, however Asquith stayed as Liberal Celebration leader.
In The Oxford Buddy to British History, historian Martin Pugh argues: Lloyd George made a greater influence on British public life than any other 20th-century leader, thanks to his pre-war introduction of Britain’s social welfare system (specifically medical insurance coverage, unemployment insurance, and old-age pensions, largely paid for by taxes on high incomes and on the land).
The federal government of Lloyd George was controlled by the Conservative Celebration, which lastly deposed him in 1922. By the end of the 1920s, the Labour Party had actually replaced the Liberals as the Conservatives’ main rival. The Liberal Celebration went into decline after 1918 and by the 1950s won no more than 6 seats at basic elections.
At the 1983 basic election, the Alliance won over a quarter of the vote, but just 23 of the 650 seats it objected to. At the 1987 general election, its share of the vote fell below 23% and the Liberals and Social Democratic Party merged in 1988 to form the Liberal Democrats.
Popular intellectuals associated with the Liberal Party consist of the philosopher John Stuart Mill, the economist John Maynard Keynes and social organizer William Beveridge. The Liberal Celebration outgrew the Whigs, who had their origins in an noble faction in the reign of Charles II and the early 19th century Radicals.
Although their intentions in this were initially to get more power for themselves,
the more optimistic Whigs gradually pertained to support a growth of democracy for its own sake. The terrific figures of reformist Whiggery were Charles James Fox (passed away 1806) and his disciple and successor Earl Grey. After decades in opposition, the Whigs went back to power under Grey in 1830 and brought the First Reform Act in 1832.
The admission of the middle classes to the franchise and to the Home of Commons led eventually to the development of a systematic middle class liberalism and completion of Whiggery, although for several years reforming aristocrats held senior positions in the celebration. In the years after Grey’s retirement, the party was led initially by Lord Melbourne, a relatively conventional Whig, and after that by Lord John Russell, the son of a Duke but a crusading radical, and by Lord Palmerston, a renegade Irish Tory and basically a conservative, although efficient in extreme gestures.
The leading Radicals were John Bright and Richard Cobden, who represented the production towns which had gained representation under the Reform Act. They favoured social reform, individual liberty, decreasing the powers of the Crown and the Church of England (many Liberals were Nonconformists), avoidance of war and foreign alliances (which were bad for service) and above all open market.
In 1841, the Liberals lost office to the Conservatives under Sir Robert Peel, but their period in opposition was brief because the Conservatives split over the repeal of the Corn Laws, a totally free trade concern; and a faction called the Peelites (but not Peel himself, who died not long after) defected to the Liberal side.
A leading Peelite was William Ewart Gladstone, who was a reforming Chancellor of the Exchequer in the majority of these federal governments. The official structure of the Liberal Party is generally traced to 1859 and the development of Palmerston’s 2nd government. Nevertheless, the Whig-Radical amalgam might not end up being a true contemporary political party while it was dominated by aristocrats and it was not till the departure of the “Two Terrible Old Men”, Russell and Palmerston, that Gladstone might become the first leader of the contemporary Liberal Party.
After a quick Conservative government (during which the Second Reform Act
was passed by arrangement in between the parties), Gladstone won a big victory at the 1868 election and formed the first Liberal federal government. The establishment of the party as a nationwide membership organisation featured the foundation of the National Liberal Federation in 1877.
For the next thirty years Gladstone and Liberalism were synonymous. William Ewart Gladstone served as prime minister 4 times (186874, 188085, 1886, and 189294). His monetary policies, based on the concept of balanced spending plans, low taxes and, were suited to a developing capitalist society, but they could not react successfully as economic and social conditions changed.
Deeply religious, Gladstone brought a new ethical tone to politics, with his evangelical perceptiveness and his opposition to aristocracy. His moralism often angered his upper-class challengers (consisting of Queen Victoria), and his heavy-handed control divided the Liberal Celebration. In foreign policy, Gladstone was in basic against foreign entanglements, however he did not withstand the truths of imperialism.
His objective was to produce a European order based on co-operation instead of conflict and on mutual trust rather of rivalry and suspicion; the guideline of law was to supplant the reign of force and self-interest. This Gladstonian concept of an unified Performance of Europe was opposed to and ultimately beat by a Bismarckian system of manipulated alliances and antagonisms.…
A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state.
In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are really limited in power and are typically not completely held positions; and social bodies that solve disputes through predefined rules tend to be little.
While stateless societies were the standard in human prehistory, couple of stateless societies exist today; practically the entire worldwide population resides within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state. In some regions nominal state authorities may be very weak and wield little or no actual power. Throughout history most stateless peoples have been integrated into the state-based societies around them.
A main tenet of anarchism is the advocacy of society without states. The kind of society sought for varies considerably between anarchist schools of thought, ranging from severe individualism to complete collectivism. In Marxism, Marx’s theory of the state considers that in a post-capitalist society the state, an unfavorable organization, would be unnecessary and wither away.
Constitutions are composed documents that specify and restrict the powers of the different branches of federal government. Although a constitution is a written file, there is also an unwritten constitution. The unwritten constitution is continuously being composed by the legal and judiciary branch of government; this is just among those cases in which the nature of the situations determines the kind of government that is most proper.
Constitutions typically set out separation of powers, dividing the federal government into the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary (together described as the trias politica), in order to accomplish checks and balances within the state. Additional independent branches may likewise be produced, consisting of civil service commissions, election commissions, and supreme audit institutions.
Every political system is embedded in a specific political culture.
Lucian Pye’s meaning is that “Political culture is the set of mindsets, beliefs, and sentiments, which provide order and suggesting to a political process and which offer the underlying presumptions and guidelines that govern habits in the political system”. Trust is a significant consider political culture, as its level determines the capability of the state to function.
Religious beliefs has likewise an effect on political culture. Political corruption is making use of powers for illegitimate personal gain, performed by government officials or their network contacts. Types of political corruption include bribery, cronyism, nepotism, and political patronage. Types of political patronage, in turn, consists of clientelism, earmarking, pork barreling, slush funds, and spoils systems; along with political makers, which is a political system that runs for corrupt ends.
A form of government that is built on corruption is called a (‘ rule of thieves’). Political conflict entails the usage of political violence to achieve political ends. As noted by Carl von Clausewitz, “War is a simple extension of politics by other methods.” Beyond simply inter-state warfare, this may include civil war; wars of nationwide liberation; or asymmetric warfare, such as guerrilla war or terrorism.
However, these might likewise be nonviolent transformations. Macropolitics can either explain political concerns that impact an entire political system (e. g. the country state), or refer to interactions between political systems (e. g. global relations). Global politics (or world politics) covers all aspects of politics that affect numerous political systems, in practice meaning any political phenomenon crossing national borders.
An essential component is worldwide relations: the relations between nation-states may be tranquil when they are carried out through diplomacy, or they may be violent, which is referred to as war. States that have the ability to exert strong worldwide impact are described as superpowers, whereas less-powerful ones may be called regional or middle powers.
Emerging powers are potentially destabilizing to it, specifically if they display revanchism or irredentism.
Politics inside the limitations of political systems, which in modern context represent national borders, are referred to as domestic politics. This consists of most kinds of public policy, such as social policy, economic policy, or law enforcement, which are carried out by the state administration.
A political celebration is a political organization that usually seeks to attain and maintain political power within federal government, generally by getting involved in political campaigns, instructional outreach, or protest actions. Celebrations often embrace a revealed ideology or vision, reinforced by a composed platform with particular goals, forming a coalition among diverse interests.
This is impacted by characteristics of the political system, including its electoral system. According to Duverger’s law, first-past-the-post systems are most likely to lead to two-party systems, while proportional representation systems are more most likely to produce a multiparty system. Micropolitics describes the actions of individual stars within the political system. This is often explained as political involvement.
The unpredictability of results is intrinsic in democracy. Democracy makes all forces battle consistently to realize their interests and degenerates power from groups of individuals to sets of guidelines. Amongst modern-day political theorists, there are 3 competing conceptions of democracy: aggregative,, and. The theory of aggregative democracy declares that the aim of the democratic procedures is to get the preferences of people, and aggregate them together to identify what social policies the society ought to adopt.
Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under minimalism, democracy is a system of federal government in which people have actually offered teams of political leaders the right to rule in routine elections. According to this minimalist conception, residents can not and ought to not “guideline” because, for instance, on a lot of concerns, many of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded.
Contemporary supporters of minimalism consist of William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner. According to the theory of, on the other hand, citizens should vote straight, not through their representatives, on legislative propositions. Advocates of direct democracy offer differed factors to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it mingles and informs citizens, and popular involvement can inspect effective elites.…
Some theories in turn argue that warfare was important for state development.
The very first states of sorts were those of early dynastic Sumer and early dynastic Egypt, which arose from the Uruk duration and Predynastic Egypt respectively around approximately 3000 BCE. Early dynastic Egypt was based around the Nile River in the north-east of Africa, the kingdom’s borders being based around the Nile and stretching to locations where oases existed.
Although state-forms existed before the increase of the Ancient Greek empire, the Greeks were the very first people known to have clearly developed a political viewpoint of the state, and to have actually logically analyzed political organizations. Prior to this, states were described and justified in regards to religious myths. Numerous important political developments of classical antiquity originated from the Greek city-states () and the Roman Republic.
The concept of non-interference in other nations’ domestic affairs was set out in the mid-18th century by Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel. States became the primary institutional agents in an interstate system of relations. The Peace of Westphalia is stated to have ended efforts to enforce supranational authority on European states.
In Europe, throughout the 18th century, the timeless non-national states were the multinational empires: the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Hungary, the Russian Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire. Such empires likewise existed in Asia, Africa, and the Americas; in the Muslim world, instantly after the death of Muhammad in 632, Caliphates were developed, which turned into multi-ethnic trans-national empires.
The population belonged to numerous ethnic groups, and they spoke many languages.
The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was typically the language of public administration. The ruling dynasty was normally, but not constantly, from that group. A few of the smaller European states were not so ethnically diverse, but were likewise dynastic states, ruled by a royal house.
Many theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, assisted in by advancements such as state-mandated education, mass literacy, and mass media. Nevertheless, historians  also note the early emergence of a fairly unified state and identity in Portugal and the Dutch Republic. Scholars such as Steven Weber, David Woodward, Michel Foucault, and Jeremy Black have actually advanced the hypothesis that the country state did not occur out of political ingenuity or an unknown undetermined source, nor was it an accident of history or political development.
Some country states, such as Germany and Italy, came into presence a minimum of partially as an outcome of political projects by nationalists, during the 19th century. In both cases, the territory was previously divided to name a few states, some of them really small. Liberal ideas of complimentary trade played a role in German unification, which was preceded by a customs union, the Zollverein.
Decolonization lead to the production of brand-new nation states in location of international empires in the Third World. Political globalization started in the 20th century through intergovernmental organizations and supranational unions. The League of Nations was established after World War I, and after World War II it was replaced by the United Nations.
Regional integration has been pursued by the African Union, ASEAN, the European Union, and Mercosur.
International political institutions on the global level consist of the International Criminal Court, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. The study of politics is called government, or politology. It consists of numerous subfields, consisting of relative politics, political economy, global relations, political philosophy, public administration, public policy, gender and politics, and political approach.
Comparative politics is the science of comparison and mentor of different types of constitutions, political stars, legislature and associated fields, all of them from an intrastate perspective. Worldwide relations handle the interaction in between nation-states as well as intergovernmental and multinational companies. Political philosophy is more worried with contributions of different classical and contemporary thinkers and thinkers.
Approaches include positivism, interpretivism, logical option theory, behavioralism, structuralism, post-structuralism, realism, institutionalism, and pluralism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, utilizes approaches and techniques that relate to the type of inquiries looked for: primary sources such as historical files and main records, secondary sources such as academic journal short articles, survey research, analytical analysis, case studies, speculative research study, and model structure.
The political system specifies the procedure for making official federal government decisions. It is usually compared to the legal system, financial system, cultural system, and other social systems. According to David Easton, “A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society.” Each political system is embedded in a society with its own political culture, and they in turn shape their societies through public law.
Forms of federal government can be categorized by numerous ways. In terms of the structure of power, there are monarchies (consisting of absolute monarchies) and republics (usually presidential, semi-presidential, or parliamentary). The separation of powers explains the degree of horizontal integration in between the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and other independent organizations.
In a democracy, political legitimacy is based on popular sovereignty. Forms of democracy include representative democracy, direct democracy, and demarchy. These are separated by the way decisions are made, whether by elected representatives, referenda, or by person juries. Democracies can be either republics or absolute monarchies. Oligarchy is a class structure where a minority rules.
Autocracies are either dictatorships (including military dictatorships) or absolute monarchies. The path of regional combination or separation In terms of level of vertical combination, political systems can be divided into (from least to most incorporated) confederations, federations, and unitary states. A federation (likewise known as a federal state) is a political entity identified by a union of partially independent provinces, states, or other areas under a central federal government (federalism).…
In 2009, TELEVISION news legend Larry King took a seat with TIME’s Gilbert Cruz to tal … In 2009, TELEVISION news legend Larry King took a seat with TIME’s Gilbert Cruz to talk about his brand-new memoir, My Impressive Journey, a retrospective on his 50-year broadcasting career, and to respond to concerns submitted by …
Set of activities associated with the governance of a country or territory Politics (from Greek:, politik, ‘affairs of the cities’) is the set of activities that are related to making decisions in groups, or other kinds of power relations between people, such as the distribution of resources or status.
It may be utilized positively in the context of a “political option” which is compromising and non-violent, or descriptively as “the art or science of government”, however likewise typically carries an unfavorable undertone. For instance, abolitionist Wendell Phillips declared that “we do not play politics; anti-slavery is no half-jest with us.” The concept has actually been defined in different ways, and various methods have essentially differing views on whether it need to be used extensively or limited, empirically or normative, and on whether conflict or co-operation is more necessary to it.
Politics is exercised on a wide variety of social levels, from clans and people of standard societies, through modern city governments, companies and institutions as much as sovereign states, to the international level. In modern-day country states, individuals frequently form political parties to represent their concepts. Members of a party often consent to take the exact same position on lots of problems and consent to support the same modifications to law and the very same leaders.
A political system is a framework which defines acceptable political approaches within a society. The history of political thought can be traced back to early antiquity, with critical works such as Plato’s, Aristotle’s Politics, Chanakya’s and Chanakya Niti (3rd century BCE), in addition to the works of Confucius. The English politics has its roots in the name of Aristotle’s classic work,, which introduced the Greek term (, ‘affairs of the cities’).
The particular politic initially testified in English in 1430, coming from Middle French politiqueitself taking from politicus, a Latinization of the Greek (politikos) from (polites, ‘citizen’) and (, ‘city’). In the view of Harold Lasswell, politics is “who gets what, when, how.” For David Easton, it has to do with “the reliable allocation of worths for a society.” To Vladimir Lenin, “politics is the most focused expression of economics.” Bernard Crick argued that “politics is a distinct type of rule where individuals act together through institutionalized treatments to resolve distinctions, to conciliate diverse interests and worths and to reveal policies in the pursuit of typical functions.” Politics consists of all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and in between societies, whereby people set about organizing the use, production or circulation of human, natural and other resources in the course of the production and reproduction of their biological and social life.
Adrian Leftwich has actually separated views of politics based on how comprehensive or limited their perception of what accounts as ‘political’ is. The comprehensive view sees politics as present across the sphere of human social relations, while the limited view restricts it to particular contexts. For instance, in a more restrictive way, politics may be deemed mainly about governance, while a feminist perspective could argue that websites which have actually been viewed traditionally as non-political, need to indeed be considered as political too.
Rather, politics may be specified by the usage of power, as has actually been argued by Robert A. Dahl. Some viewpoints on politics view it empirically as a workout of power, while others see it as a social function with a normative basis. This difference has actually been called the distinction between political moralism and political realism.
For example, according to Hannah Arendt, the view of Aristotle was that “to be politicalmeant that whatever was chosen through words and persuasion and not through violence;” while according to Bernard Crick” [p] olitics is the method which totally free societies are governed. Politics is politics and other forms of rule are something else.” On the other hand, for realists, represented by those such as Niccol Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Harold Lasswell, politics is based on making use of power, irrespective of the ends being pursued.
Political researcher Elmer Schattschneider argued that “at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict,” while for Carl Schmitt the essence of politics is the difference of ‘friend’ from foe’. This remains in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. Nevertheless, a more blended view in between these extremes is supplied by Irish author Michael Laver, who noted that: Politics is about the characteristic mix of dispute and co-operation that can be discovered so frequently in human interactions.
Pure co-operation holds true love. Politics is a mixture of both. The history of politics spans human history and is not limited to contemporary organizations of government. Frans de Waal argued that currently chimpanzees take part in politics through “social manipulation to secure and maintain influential positions.” Early human forms of social organizationbands and tribeslacked central political structures.
In ancient history, civilizations did not have guaranteed limits as states have today, and their borders might be more accurately explained as frontiers. Early dynastic Sumer, and early dynastic Egypt were the first civilizations to specify their borders. Moreover, approximately the 12th century, many individuals resided in non-state societies.
There are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state development that look for generalizations to discuss why the state developed in some places however not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation ought to be treated on its own. Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as an outcome of some shared reasonable interest.…
so thank you Dean Lester do I call you Dean or do I call you acting okay justine Lester it's good it's wonderful to be here I'm but I have to confess I'm a little anxious to be here I'm anxious because one part of my life a big chunk of the last 25 years of my life has been as an academic but the part of my life I want to talk about tonight is life as an activist I spend a chunk of my life talking about academic questions but i would ask citizen questions tonight and I was led to this shift by a certain recognition a recognition that I know many of the people in this audience share the recognition that something fundamental is not working I got to this place by thinking about IP both VIP as in tcp/ip and the IP as in copyright as IP my academic work focused in this area in this sense I spent like chunk of my life in the same place Thomas Jordan spent his life and in this space as we talked about these issues for over 15 years I saw progress everywhere in the recognition and understanding of people universities businesses parents ordinary Americans about the need for progress and to update the way in which the law thought about both the regulation of technology and the regulation of copyright we saw progress everywhere except for this place in this place members of Congress promulgated ideas like the statute in honor of this great American the sonny bono copyright term extension act a statute which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years an idea which when we challenged in the Supreme Court we had a brief by a bunch of economists including this right let the left wait no I'm sorry this is non filming right wing Nobel prize-winning economist who said he would join the brief attacking the statute only if the word no-brainer was somewhere in the brief so obvious was it that you couldn't advance the public good by extending the term of existing copyrights but apparently there were no brains in this place when Congress unanimously extended the term of existing copyrights an institution that promulgated this statute the SOPA PIPA statute which brought Wikipedia to shut down in protest and a year ago then led thousands of people to call their Congress people to get them to withdraw that idea a regime that leads people like this US Attorney Carmen Ortiz to say something like stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar showing clearly she understands neither computers nor crowbars so the question is why is it I asked about six years ago our political system is so bad in understanding and updating its recognition the way the law should work in this particular area and about 2006 I'm embarrassed to say I had the recognition that of course it wasn't just here in the area of IP that this failure to understand an update occurred it was in a wide range of areas but the particular focus that I had at that time was around this film which a friend of mine made for al gore and so I got to see Gore present this talk again and again and again and it hit me I thought it was a smart person but when I realized it took me so long to recognize this I realized I couldn't be a smart person it hit me that it wasn't just esoteric questions like IP where we couldn't get a Congress to respond to the obvious truths that other people got it was in this fundamental area too and in many fundamental areas and when you ask why is it the institution was incapable of focusing here I was struck by the comments of James Hansen who of course is one of Al Gore's heroes in the context of this film but as hansen accounts for the failure of the system to understand and respond to global warming he says I believe the biggest obstacle to solving global warming is the role of money in politics so between night 2006 and 2007 I had the great pleasure of being in Berlin I was writing the final book that I wrote in this space remix about this issue and I was visited by an extraordinary young man Aaron Swartz who came to Berlin to attend a conference called the Chaos Computer Conference and in January came to visit me at at the American Academy and we had a long conversation that night the two of us and he said to me in that conversation how are you going to ever deal with the issues that you care about without dealing with this corruption first and I said to him you know Aaron it's not my field on my field and he said as an academic I said yes as an academic it's not my field my field is technology and policy and I focused my energy there and he said well what about as a citizen what about as a citizen and it was that conversation that led me to decide that I was going to throw away all the intellectual capital I had built for the last ten fifteen years and started a new project which announced that summer a project to focus on this question of the corrupting influence of money and how do we rally or build the recognition necessary to address it and it's this move between the academic and the citizen that I want us to think about tonight in particular I want to think about the luxuries we can afford as citizens and his academics because it's academics we have to recognize at least in America it's as great as it has ever been in the history of human culture it's as great as it's ever been the resources the opportunity the culture encourages us to take her to question to wait to watch to quibble it is what we do as academics the question I want to ask tonight is what do we do as citizens can we afford this luxury as citizens because when you think back to other moments in our history when a political system felt it had to confront fundamental issues it didn't have the luxury that academics have today think back to the founding framers recognizing the nation was about to fall off the cliff recognizing they needed to figure out a new structure all they had was history a little bit of law they didn't even understand Adam Smith yet they had no regressions they had didn't even have Windows 3.1 they had none of these things for addressing the most important issues that they had yet they had to address them it had to address them with what they knew and architect a constitutional system they felt what makes sense with what they knew the puzzle is now that we have more than they had but it feels as if we have less capacity to do anything with what we have less capacity to resolve and move forward to decide to fix and I think we can't afford less anymore we have to think about how do we frame what we do in a way to get us into something more so here's the argument i want to lay out i'm going to set it up with a certain framing of the problem but i want to introduce this problem by telling you a story and disney told me that all stories have to begin like this so once upon a time started out with all due respect to the dean there was a place called Lester land Lester land now jelly didn't mention this because it's a secret I don't like anybody know this so don't tell anybody but my first name is Lester so I'm allowed to make fun of last year's I'm not making fun of the Dean I'm making fun of I'm invoking my own name here Lester land so here's last early unless you looks a lot like the United States like the United States it has about 310 million people and of the 310 million people it turns out 144,000 of them are named Lester so that means about point zero five percent of Lester land is named Lester now the thing about Lester land is that Lester's have a certain kind of power in lesterland there are two elections every election cycle in Westerland there's a general election and there is a Lester election in the last election the Lester's get to vote in the general election all citizens over 18 in some states if you have an ID get to vote but here's the catch to be allowed to run in the general election you must do extremely well in the Lester election you don't necessarily have to win but you must do extremely well now what can we say about this picture of democracy called Lester lamp well we can say number one as a supreme court said in Citizens United but the people in lesterland have the ultimate influence over elected officials because after all there is a general election but only after the Lester's have had their way with the candidates who wish to run in that general election and number two we can say obviously this dependence upon the Lester's is going to produce a subtle understated may be camouflaged bending to keep these Lester's happy and number three reform that angers the Lester's is likely to be highly unlikely in leicester lat okay now once you have this conception of Lester land I want you to see three fins that follow from this conception number one the United States is Lester left the United States is lesterland United States also looks like this also has two elections one's called the general election the other is called the money election and the general election all citizens get to vote if you are over 18 in some states if you have an ID in the money election it's the relevant funders who get to vote and as in lesterland to be allowed to run in the general election you must do extremely well in the money election you don't necessarily have to win there are jerry Brown's in this story but you must do extremely well but here's the key there are just as few relevant funders in this democracy as there are Lester's in lesterland now you say really point zero five percent when hear the numbers from 2012 2012 point four percent of America gave more than two hundred dollars to any federal candidate point zero five five gave the maximum amount to any federal candidate point zero one gave ten thousand dollars or more to federal candidates 4000 three percent gave a hundred thousand dollars or more my favorite statistic point 0 0 0 0 for 2 percent and for those of you doing the numbers you know that's a hundred and thirty two Americans gave sixty percent of the super PAC money spent in the twenty twelve election cycle so I'm just a humble lawyer I look at point four point zero five 5.01 I think it's fair for me to say point zero five percent is a fair estimate of the relevant funders in our system for funding elections in this sense the funders are our Lester's now like we can say about Lester land this is what we can say about us a len number one Supreme Court is completely right the people have the ultimate influence the ultimate influence over the elected officials because there is a general election but only after the funders have had their way with the candidates who wish to run in that general election and number two obviously this dependent upon the funders produces the subtle understated camouflaged we could say bending to keep the funders happy members of Congress and candidates for Congress spend anywhere between thirty and seventy percent of their time raising money to get back to Congress to get their party back into power Democratic leadership handed out this PowerPoint slide to all incoming Democratic freshmen this slide which gives them their daily schedule their daily schedule which includes explicitly for hours voted to the task of calling to raise money and this is just during the day what do they do at night go to fundraisers and raise more money now any human that had this light would develop a sixth sense a constant awareness about how what you do will affect your ability to raise money in the words of the x-files they will become shape shifters as they constantly adjust their views in light of what they know will help them to raise money Leslie burn a Democrat for Virginia describes that when she went to Congress she was told by a colleague quote always leaned to the green and to clarify she went on he was not an environmentalist and then point three reformed that angers the funders is likely to be highly unlikely in USA as lesterland that's the first point to see here's the second United States is last LAN the United States is worse than westerlund worse than Lester work because you can imagine in lesterland if we lester's got a letter from the government that said you know you guys get to pick who's going to be the candidates that run in the general election you can imagine we would develop a kind of aristocratic attitude we would believe begin to believe we need to act in the interest of the country as a whole you know Lester's come from all parts of society at a rich Lester's poor Lester's black Lester's whites not many women Lester's except the Dean of course but not many women Lester's but put that aside for a second it come from all parts of society it's at least possible that the Lester's would be inspired to act for the good of lesterland but in our land in this land in USA land the Lester's act for the Lester's because the shifting coalition's that comprise the point zero five percent comprise two point zero five percent because of the issues they know will be decided in the next congressional term so if its climate change legislation its oil companies and coal companies that comprise a significant portion of the point zero five percent if it's health care its pharmaceutical companies or doctors or insurance companies that comprise a significant portion the point zero five percent whatever the issue is that what does that's what's determines who the Lester's are and these Lester's don't gather for the public interest so in this sense the United States is worse than less one point number three whatever one wants to say about Lester land against the background of its tradition whatever explains this interesting little place in our land in USA land we have to recognize that a Lester land like government is a corruption a corruption now by corruption I don't mean cash secret around in brown paper bags I don't mean a kind of Rob Blagojevich sense of corruption I'm not talking about the violation of any criminal statute I'm not asserting that anybody in our system does anything illegal I'm not talking about breaking the law instead I mean a corruption relative to the framers baseline for how the Republic was to function so the framers gave us what they explicitly called a Republican but by a republic they meant a representative democracy and bio representative democracy as Madison explains in Federalist 52 they meant a government that would have a branch that would be dependent upon the people alone here's the model of government they have the people they have the government and turn on slides it all the way that bounces like that okay the people and the government and through that exclusive dependency so would the public would be found but here's the problem Congress has evolved a different dependence not a dependence upon the people alone but increasingly dependent upon the funders this is a dependence too but it's different and conflicting from a dependence upon the people alone so long as the funders are not the people it is a corruption and we should understand it precisely as a corruption of the architecture of this Republic now I want to claim the right to say this that it's a corruption I'm going to claim the right as an academic to say this because I have credentials here right I'm a constitutional law professor deep I'm an adult constitutional law professor because I've been teaching for 21 years constitutional law okay and in the gestation period is getting really weird this was my teacher too okay so I have a sense of the Constitution tradition I think it was me to assert that this is I kind of ruption I believe that if I could bring a string of framers back I could convince them that this is a corruption of the system they described but the difficulty for me as an academic is that I want to say more than just that I want to say that this corruption has an effect I want to say has an effect on US citizens and it has an effect on our government so it as an effect are cysts citizens in the way drives us to regard our government so first effect is this Americans believe it's a separate question I think Americans are right to believe but let's focus on their belief americans believe quote money buys results in Congress seventy-five percent of americans according to a poll i conducted for the book that i published last fall a little bit higher Democrats and Republicans but i guarantee you before the republicans took control of the house it was just as many Republicans as democrats so whether it's two-thirds or a three-fourths here's the one thing we americans all believe money buys results in Congress leading to point number two that believe undermines trust in the institution of Congress ABC in new york times published a poll last year saying that nine percent of america a confidence in our Congress nine percent put that in some context but certainly the case at the time of the American Revolution higher percentage of Americans had confidence in the British crown than have confidence in our Congress today and that leads to point number three this weekend trust weakens the reasons one has to participate so this is the point that David Souter made in Nixon vs shrink Missouri he said leave the perception of impropriety unanswered and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance it's would Rock the Vote discovered in 2010 in 2008 they turned out the largest number of young voters in the history of voting to that point 2010 they founded a significant number of their voters were just not going to turn out so they pulled them to ask them why the number one reason by far two to one of the second-highest reason was no matter who wins corporate interest will still have too much power and to prevent real change and it's not just kids vast majority people in 2010 who could have voted did not vote I submit in part at least because of this belief and even in this election for to the percent of the people who could have voted did not vote in part at least because of this belief that is its effect on us but maybe more significant is its effect on our government because I believe this economy has this corruption has a certain economy an economy that has actors the lobbyists the members the Lester's working together in an economy and this economy has an effect two in particular I want to identify here number one we can think of the economy of know that gets produced by this economy of these three actors number two the economy of extortion so let's think first about the economy of no in any system where this tiny fraction of the one percent are the relevant funders any system like this means that a tiny number of that tiny fraction of the one percent is sufficient to block any motion for change always or at least almost always and this points to the instability that I think we have allowed to evolve inside of this government this is the economy of know and this economy depends upon polarization to make it function better it depends upon dysfunction to make it function better because dysfunction makes it easier to sell the good that is being sold the good of saying no of stopping the system from functioning dysfunction is the business model Lee Fang at the nation wrote this piece about lobbyists we're trying to stop the reform of the Senate filibuster process and he quoted from a website one of the lobbyists describing the service that lobbyists could provide to any business that was so interested in securing it it's a service called managing holds and filibusters your organization has an interest in a bill that has been proven controversial and you require advocacy before those legislature legislators often back the bench Senate Republicans who may exercise is their prerogatives to delay or obstruct endgame strategies will give you a new way to manage your interest in a legislative environment that gives great power to individual senators we are auctioning the ability to block and it's because of this tiny number of less Lester's that are needed to exercise the leverage to get them to block to get them to say no that we have this economy of know at the center of the way this government now functions now there are exceptions we can now dream of the negation immigration reform because this party is fearing its own extinction there are exceptions the tragedy and Sandy Hook may bring us to a place that the government can finally address the problem of guns in a comprehensive way these are exceptions but there are exceptions against the background of a clear rule and if that rule I suggest that is the core of the instability in the way this government doesn't function so that's the economy of note and then there's the economy of extortion so I've pointed to the point zero five percenter Lester's think now about the point zero zero zero one four percent members of Congress because the dynamic that we should recognize is obvious once you think about it the dependence members of Congress creates their own dependencies to help them feed their dependency so think for example about this The Wall Street Journal two years ago was puzzled by the rise of what they called these temporary tax code provisions task code is riddled with the short-term provisions that expire at a certain point and if you want them extended got to go to Congress to get them extended once again and the number of these extensions was growing and the journal didn't quite understand why they would be growing like this but from the perspective I'm offering it should be obvious why they're growing like this Reagan gave us the first of these temporary provisions the 1981 research and development tax credit it was made temporary because there was an argument about whether work Democrats said it wouldn't work Republicans said it would work so they said okay let's make a temporary and then we'll ask economists after a period of time whether worked after period of time as …
– So we're now on the, into the fifth part of the course called, what is to be done? And I want to just begin by talking about the key features of the
politics of insecurity, some of which we addressed
earlier in the course and some in the last two lectures. But they really shape
the landscape on which we have to think about,
what can and cannot be done in politics, in
the world as we actually find it. And so, first thinking about voters. One thing that we have learned is that local inequalities matter
to people much more than global inequalities. Bernie Sanders can talk
as much as he likes about the top 1% and it will motivate activists on the left of the Democratic party but most voters really
care about much more local inequalities.
And we talked about this
earlier in the course when we were talking
about how capuchin monkey experiment was misinterpreted when the angry monkey was likened to
the Wall Street protester but whether the monkey was
angry because she or he was not getting something
that a similarly situated monkey was getting. The monkey was not troubled
that the researcher had a big bowl of grapes and cucumbers. So people tend to compare
themselves to similarly situated others. Oil workers might compare
themselves to coal miners. Auto workers might compare themselves to steel workers. And this is true up and
down the occupational scale. I think I mentioned to you, a professor would be much more troubled to learn that she or he is paid significantly less than say, $10,000 less than
a professor in the next office than to learn
they're paid half a million dollars less than the attorney next door.
So people tend to make local comparisons. And the idea that marked hope for, that people would start
to make more global comparisons, is not
supported by the research of sociologists and social psychologists. Secondly, think about
Rick Santelli's rant, another illustration of this point. This is the famous rant
on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange right after
the Obama Administration came into office and had
started talking about minor mortgage relief for homeowners. Nothing like John
Geanakoplos was proposing, but nonetheless he was proposing reducing interest rates at least
for a time on peoples loans and it produced a lot of
rage that was articulated in that video I showed you. At the end of it, his
calling for a tea party and people credit the formation
of the tea party with… As being, if you like,
catalyzed by Rick Santelli's rant on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
And you might also recall
that one of the things he complained about was, he
said, it's a moral hazard. It's a moral hazard. But notice of course,
bailing out the banks is also a moral hazard, right? Bailing out the banks is
giving banks the incentive to gamble with taxpayer's money. So while it may be a
moral hazard to bail out the homeowner's, it's
no less, you might say in some ways it's more
consequential moral hazard to bail out the banks. Nonetheless, what enraged him was that do you wanna pay for your
neighbor's mortgage?, he rhetorically said. So again, local comparisons
that matter to people. Think about the difference
between the Trump and Sander's campaigns on this question of who people compare themselves with. In many ways Trump and
Sanders ran a populist campaigns in the 2016 election. They attacked Wall Street
elites for being corrupt. But a difference was that Sanders talked a lot about inequality
whereas Trump did not. Trump never promised to reduce inequality. He never, as I said, even said what Ronald Reagan had said, that he wants America to be a country in which everybody can get rich.
All he said was that, you
people have been screwed. You people have been… Left behind by the… By the policies of foolish elites, he calls everybody idiots. And I'm gonna put America first and so on. And to the extent there
was a fairness argument. We talked about this in connection with Arlie Hochschild's
narrative of cutting in. Some people have cut in front of me and taken something that I would otherwise have gotten, right? Again, very local comparisons that people are making.
They are not thinking about what people, very distant from them
in the socioeconomic order are making. Related to that, closely related to that is a loss aversion and in its insecurity, often matter much more to
people than inequality. Again, think here of Trump's
make America great again. Something's been taken away from you. We're gonna bring it
back and do something. We're gonna recreate something
that had existed before. I am gonna bring back those jobs. I'm not gonna make you rich. I'm gonna bring back those jobs. That was the essence of his campaign whereas Hilary's was, she
took that other Reagan line, American's best days are ahead. Sunny optimism which is
a lot harder to sustain during an era of endemic
employment insecurity. And again, just driving
home the point that it's insecurity and the
fear of downward mobility that matters much more to
people than their place in the distribution of income and wealth, globally conceived.
Remember those data about
Trump primary voters. Only a third of whom earned
lower than the median income, below $50,000 a head per family. Another, 2nd and 3rd earned
between the median income and 100,000, and the third
third of primary voters not Republican voters
in the general election were Trump supporters. And in those primaries, so, again, middle-class people who feel insecure, and this is, what Dan
Markovits' book is about, may be just as anxious and mobilizable by a populist politician as poor people who feel insecure.
So the insecurity and
loss aversion matter more than inequality and
it's local inequalities that matter much more to
people than global ones. And then we're living in a world in which almost everywhere
organized labor is weaker than it's been in decades. We've seen, in country after country, the decline of union
movements, it's way down into single digits, in the US, and the majority of workers that are organized now are in public sector unions which do have some political clout. We will see next week when
we talk about education. But for the most part,
as a force in politics, unions have seldom been as weak, if ever, in the last 80 or 90 years, if ever, as they are today. This is particularly pronounced in the US, but we saw pretty much everywhere except one or two places like
Finland and Iceland, we've seen a decline in the
power of organized labor.
A concomitant to that, business interests are stronger than
they've been for decades. Partly because of the
collapse of a serious alternative out there. Communism to the extent
it exists politically is now supported by capitalists economies in places like China and
Vietnam and so there's no real alternative to
capitalism out there, which obviously, greatly,
increases the power of capital. Particularly in an era of globalization when it can easily flee, the flying East theory that Christina talked about in the China lecture. And in these, as jobs going
increasingly to technology, capital doesn't even need to flee in order to increase its leverage over labor. So we're living in a world in which labor is weaker than its been in living memory and business interests are more powerful than they've been in living memory. And then coming to Thursdays lecture of last week, we're also living in a world in which political
parties have become weaker and more fragmented just about everywhere.
And this is not something that has gone on for eight decades, but it certainly has gone on over the past
four decades as labor has become weaker, parties on the left have fragmented and we saw that as induced fragmentation on the right in multi-party systems and
all over the democratic world, this impulse to
democratize parties, to get more and more direct democracy in the governance of parties, and in making of decisions has greatly weakened parties in both multi-party systems and even two-party systems and indeed, even the… The platonic form of what used to be two-party systems. The Westminster system between their going for referendum between the changes in their leadership selection rules, between adopting things
like fixed parliaments and candidate selection
also being decentralized, they have replicated much of the rest of the democratic world in
making it much more difficult for parties to present, get elected on programmatic platforms
and then implement them as governments.
It's a world that's ripe
for populist charlatans who exploit insecurity and
promise snake oil solutions. So, what is to be done? Now at the beginning of the course when I prefaced some of these themes, in the first few lectures, I also said don't get too depressed. (class laughing) And in many respects, this
is a depressing prospect. But what I want to be arguing in these last lectures is that,
certainly we shouldn't give up hope and there
are ways of thinking constructively about
politics going forward. And indeed, in some
respects, there are reasons not just for hope but even some optimism. This was a distinction
Martin Luther King made towards the end of his life. He said he was no longer optimistic but he hadn't given up hope. I think there are some reasons to think that it might be possible to come up with constructive change and
build regressive support for it to happen.
And so that's where we're
headed in these final lectures. So, a central message of this final part of the course, and if
you like, presupposition of much that I'm gonna
say to you, power phrasing Immanuel Kant is that,
policy without politics is empty, but politics
with policy is blind. Policy, politics without policy is empty and politics without policy is blind. So, let me emphasize that it's not just in the real world but in
the academic literature, for the most part, people who study policy don't think very much about politics. They think about what
policies would be good, what should happen. But they have relatively little to say about how they're gonna get it to happen. Whereas people who study politics tend to explain why what happens happens but have way little to say
about what should happen.
And so there's this sort of
divergence of preoccupations. But I think that that is misguided. That we really need to think about what's desirable in the context
of what's feasible and take into account the constraints and possibilities that might be offered for thinking about policy rather than thinking about it in a vacuum. So just to give a couple of illustrations of policy without politics. Perhaps the most influential
book of political economy written in the last couple of decades is Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. This is the book in which he argues that the reason for increasing inequality is that returns to capital exceed returns to the other factors of production. And so, wealth accumulates over time at the top. Economists debate his data and some ways of measuring this but
that's not my concern here. The other one I wanna just mention to you as examples of these brilliant economists, there's no question about
that, but the things that he says about politics are… Bereft if any serious attention as to how they might be enacted. So for example, in his
book published in 2014, in the penultimate chapter of that book, he calls for aggressive
tax on global capital.
And in the beginning of that chapter he does say, well this
might be a utopian idea. But we should still put it out there for thinking about where we want to get to and besides, it could
inform more realistic proposals like a
Europe-wide tax on capital. Now you might say, well in 2014, that wasn't, you know,
it might not have seemed a naive thing to say,
as naive a thing to say as it is today, but nonetheless, in 2018 he has pushed this
idea further with some other intellectuals in Europe, publishing what they call our Manifesto
for the Democratization of Europe, and you can
find it and peruse it at your leisure on their website.
They're calling for the creation of a new European assembly that would essentially function as a European-wide parliament that would have powers to raise revenue and manage budgets and it would be… The idea is that 80% of the legislators would be elected in the national elections so when you vote for your MP in the UK or Austria, they would
also, not only would they go to the British or Austrian parliament, they would also participate in this new European assembly. 80% of them would come there. The others would come from
the European parliament by proportional allocation. And they portray this as an alternative to the current EU structures
which are so constrained by the treaty-based character
of the European union which I lectured to you
about some months ago. But what do they ignore in proposing this? Why is it that the Lisbon Treaty ended up with a treaty-based system? It was because the more
ambitious proposals envisaged at Maastricht
were roundly rejected in referendums in Europe.
And so they had to
actually cancel a number of the plan referendums
because they saw the whole project of a never closer
union heading for catastrophe. And so they retreated. The Lisbon Treaty is really a retreat back to the idea that while EU is essentially a system of intergovernmental treaties in its ultimate legitimacy. They also argue that the purpose of this new European parliament is to do things like reduce inequality within the member countries. But why, if the member
countries in their own parliaments can't reduce inequality, why would anyone think
that sending them to a European parliament would enable them to reduce inequality any more effectively? So, and if you go and read the website that they have there,
which I urge you to do. It's certainly an
imaginative and interesting proposal in an intellectual sense, you will find the thing I said you should always be careful of.
Or should make you watch your wallet. The vast majority of it is written in a passive voice. The vast majority of it said
about what should happen. What should occur. What needs to happen. But of course, we can
talk until we're blue in the face about what needs to happen without having anything
to say about how to make it happen. What will be the political
forces that are gonna produce an outcome of this kind? And when you think back to the literature on the European Union, Tony Judt published his book in 2006,
post-war, when he warned. He said, the problem
with the European Union is that it's been an elite
project from beginning until end and as soon as
it gets into any trouble the popular resentment
of European-wide politics is going to erupt and it's
not gonna be pretty to see.
He turned out to be right about that. Adam Tooze in Crash
gives chapter and verse of the inability of the
European governing structures to come up with policies
that the populations in the constituent
countries will live with. And so, the nationalists of the countries within the European Union is very powerful in the idea that it's going
to go away anytime soon, I think is implausible. And I gave you a reason, if you think back to my lecture. Among the reasons is that the Europeans have contracted out their security to NATO over these past several decades whereas in the American case, what
built a sense of national purpose when we transitioned
from the Confederacy to the Constitution was the
creation of a National Defense and the funding of
Central National Defense. And then the idea that
people would identify with the national project rather than, what we might call the federal project, rather than the states,
that was a transition that was set in motion
by the centralization of our power over national security in the American system at the
time of the Constitution. There's never been an analog of that and so the idea of an ever closer union has largely been a fantasy
of elites for which popular support has never been dealt and indeed is less likely
to be forthcoming today than it has been since anytime since the financial crisis.
So the idea that we can
now create a new European parliament that, as they argue in cases of disagreement would
actually trump the decisions of the European Union
who which are constrained by the treaty-based
caricature that strengthens national parliament I think is, it's an example of policy without politics being ultimately empty. What about politics without policy? Well we have examples of that. Just to give one here. (drum music) (crowd chanting) – [All] Occupy Wall
Street all day, all week. Occupy Wall Street. – It's our duty as Americans to fight for our country and to keep it, you know, true to serving its people. And when it doesn't do that, it's immoral not to stand
up and say something. – I'm here myself as a free individual to humanize the markets and to have true participatory democracy.
Bottom up democracy. And to make Wall Street hear the sound of what democracy means. – What kind of power? – [All] People power. – Wall Street, it crashes, and you know, people start, people lose their jobs and things like that. We're very angry at Wall Street. It's a part of capitalism,
American capitalism especially, that's why we're here today… At Wall Street. – There's no reason to not be peaceful. We just wanna get a point across. We're just trying to let people know what's going on and why we're here for it.
– One in seven children
in the United States suffer from hunger, at
the same time we're giving billions and almost
trillions to Wall Street just for bailouts. Something needs to change. We need an economy for the people and by the people. Not by the rich and for the rich. – I mean, and the
government's doing the work for us, all they have
to do is cut some more people's insurance, unemployment benefits and it won't be a bunch
of 20-year old white college students out here, you know? – What would make today a success? What kinds of changes
would you like to see as a result of everyone
demonstrating today? – A success, it's already happening.
They corral the bull. And that's pretty much a
huge symbolic statement. – So there you have it. This is the beginning of
the Occupy Wall Street Movement. It was a movement that
was famously uninterested in articulating particular policies, in organizing itself behind
any particular agenda, but rather its purpose was to express this moral outrage at the
bailing out of the financial crisis and the inability
of the Obama Administration to do much else. They were to some extent triggered by the Arab Spring Movement
which had gotten going that year. But they really didn't advocate
any particular policies. And indeed if you think about… If you think about the
decision to occupy Wall Street, it was, you know, unlike,
at least the Vietnam protesters went to
Washington where something might be done about it. Whereas, here they went to New York and then spent the following Fall on many town and village greens around the country but because they lacked
organization or leadership or resources, once the cold weather came, they soon faded away. Now, this doesn't mean
that they were irrelevant to American politics. They articulated a moral
narrative that was, that had a certain kind
of coherence to it.
You might call it a
reactive moral narrative but I'm gonna have some more to say about the importance of moral narratives in effective distributed
politics later this morning. But they had nothing else. They had nothing more
than a moral narrative. And moral narratives on
their own is not enough. Again, this is politics without policy. So my agenda today is to get us to start thinking about
how, we can think about how there can be effective
policies in light of what we do know about politics. And one phrase that falls to mind is in one of John Rawls's less famous writings, his Law of Peoples it comes from, I believe, the way he first used it, this is the idea of Realistic Utopianism. And so, the thing about being a realist, about politics, in the real
politics sense of realist it is the danger of being
a realist is it might prevent you from trying
to do things that will change reality, right? That you'll be so constrained by one sense of the politic, you know, the politics is the art of the possible. You'll be so constrained by the notion of what's possible that you won't push for policies that might
change what's possible, right? So that…
I think we actually say in our book on the Death by a Thousand Cuts that real political creativity gets people to think that what they
had previously regarded as impossible is in fact possible, right? That's, you know, you wanna use the buzz words. You wanna push the envelope. Think outside the box. You've heard them all before. And if you're very
constrained in your thinking about what appears to be feasible in politics as we know
it today, you will not push to change the boundaries of what is possible in politics today. And so you run a risk
of being, if you like, captive of the inability
to think imaginatively about ways to change what is possible.
And so I like this phrase
realistic utopianism in that, it conjures up the idea of trying to get to a better
place but thinking about the steps from here to there. You've gotta think about
how you're gonna join the dots. How you're gonna in fact get policies adopted that might change the politics on the ground, which I think
is conspicuously missing in the proposal for European parliament that we just talked about. And so to make that case, what I'm gonna do today and then I'm gonna use this framework in
our remaining lectures is talk about what I'm gonna
call building blocks of effective distributive politics. And there are six of them. And I'm gonna spend a little bit of time on each of them.
And I will start with coalitions. Very important in politics
to think about coalitions. And the reason it's
very important politics to think about coalitions
goes back to our discussion of the differences between
the median voter story and the majority rule divide
the dollar game, right? So just to remind you,
the median voter story created the expectation that
because the median voter is always below the mean
voter, there would be downwardly distribution of wealth because politicians in search
of the median voter would advocate policies that the
median voter would prefer.
And that was the fear of
19th century liberals. It was the hope of Marx in his later years when he started talking
about the parliamentary road to socialism and it's embodied in the median voter theorem. The puzzle was that it doesn't happen in any kind of systematic way. And we thought one
reason for that might be that there's another
dimension such as race that people care about more. And we talked about
Nixon's southern strategy in connection with all of that. But then we talked about
the majority rule divide.
A dollar game …
this video is part 1 of 2 in this episode we'll be looking at the work of Phalguni chef and learning about race racialization and political philosophy in part 2 we'll look at a case study and discuss the racialization of Muslims in so-called Western liberal societies we've got a lot of ground to cover today so I'm going to jump right in there's this big debate over whether race is a series of biological categories or whether it's just a social construct and in her book toward a political philosophy of race Phalguni chef tries to break away from that binary she says that to talk about race just as a biological category ignores all the ways that it's used in politics and law and to talk about it just as a social construct ignores the more interesting questions of who constructs it why do they construct it and how do they do it chef thinks that the concept of race is a type of technology it's a mental tool used by those in power that's the who they use it to manage unruly populations that's the why and they do this through racialization that's the how so let's go through it and I'll explain to you what all of that means the technology of race is used by sovereign power that's term that chef borrows from Foucault and for the purposes of this video we can take it to mean whoever is officially in charge and the systems through which their power is expressed chef's talk specifically about liberal societies by liberal societies shimming societies with certain basic assumptions at their heart for instance a division between the public and the private spheres an insistence that all citizens are equal emphasis on the rule of law where the law is thought to be fair and consented to democratically by the people liberalism also usually means capitalism and since the tail end of the 20th century it's increasingly meant neoliberal capitalism with an emphasis on low welfare low taxes and free markets chef has a very interesting view of what sovereign power and its legal and political systems of four she thinks that the purpose of the state is to conserve its own power and by extension conserve those basic liberal assumptions the function of government is not to ensure peace or justice or fairness or anything like that this is the self-preservation Society she thinks there's a paradox at the heart of liberalism liberal societies will talk the talk of inclusiveness and universal human rights for everyone even as they systemically exclude from that embrace certain groups of people think about how the founding fathers of the u.s.
Preached liberty and justice for all whilst owning slaves it's not always as stark as that but Sheth says that the promise of liberalism is very rarely realized for everyone but sovereign power has to preserve the basic liberal assumptions so what does it do it creates exceptions it rules out certain groups of people as not being eligible for entrance into the promised land as not being eligible for protection benefits voting rights whatever as a bonus if a population is enslaved or there's an unjust war or refugee crisis or a financial crash then those disasters can be written off as mistakes as misapplications of the principles of liberalism because sovereign power can always say oh the exceptions that we made at the time looked illegitimate but in hindsight there are actually errors anything but systemic problems okay so except that the technology of race is used by sovereign power trying to preserve itself we've covered the who but present itself against what exactly time to look at the why fortunately this bits pretty easy sovereign power wants to preserve itself against what chef calls the unruly the unruly is that which is unpredictable undependable or threatening to a political order sovereign power does not make exceptions of people randomly if your existence or the way you live threatens any of the basic liberal assumptions or even as is often the case if it's just perceived as a threat to them then you're in danger of being marked as unruly so for instance if you openly display your private values in public if you remind people that the law isn't always administered equally if you actually need the welfare state in order to survive then in the eyes of sovereign power you can be a threat whether they're consciously aware of that and whether you actually are or not so sovereign power wants to preserve itself against perceived challenges from the unruly by making exceptions of people it's time now to bring race back into this tie all the threads together and explain how making those exceptions works racialization is the process by which a population is divided and one group is pushed further and further away from that promise of liberalism both in the law and in the minds of the people it is quote the process of delineating a population in contrast to a dominant population and the corresponding political tension it is how sovereign power creates exceptions to its own rules and makes those exceptions seem totally legitimate and natural racialization protects sovereign power and suppresses the unruly because there's an implied threat of violence for those who can't get into the promised land if you're in the group that's racialized and pushed out and you don't get the protection or the benefits or whatever it is well then that'd be bad for you wouldn't it so you better stop being unruly and toe the line let's say that you and I represent sovereign power and there's this group of people that we think are unruly and we want to racialize them in order to do that we first need two things they need to have some distinguishing feature that we can use to point them out to the dominant population and say look there's the enemy it could be a physical thing like their skin color but it might not it could be their religion or their socioeconomic status or their sexuality if they don't have a distinguishing feature then we could always try giving them one like for instance making the weary yellow star or a red wristband they also need to be vulnerable already compared to the dominant population otherwise it's going to be very difficult for us to racialize and push them out maybe there's some historical inequality that hasn't been rectified maybe they're not represented in positions of power maybe they're new immigrants to our nation and they need our help to survive we take their perceived unruliness and we say everybody with that distinguishing feature is like that and that's how we write them all off as bad and begin to justify excluding them from society as a race a race that we have effectively just created now this bit is the hardest bit to understand the distinguishing features then become the criteria by which sovereign power tells us it's making the distinction it's actually distinguishing on the basis of unruliness but it's disguising that as a neutral objective possibly biological category think about the links that the Nazis went to to prove that Aryans were a different race from Jews or poles or whoever they wanted rid of at the time it's politics disguising itself as neutral objective science chef thinks that physiological markers like skin color and genetics don't constitute race rather those features are used to point out populations that are already being racialized and pushed out because sovereign power perceives them as unruly that's why some biological differences like skin color are thought to constitute race and some biological differences like hair and eye color are just natural variation within a race because the rules for deploying the concept of race don't come from biology they come from power all this theory might seem a bit abstract so let's look at a concrete example consider the internment of japanese-americans in the USA just prior to World War two many so-called japanese-americans were actually American citizens second or third generation descendants of Japanese immigrants they could be distinguished on-site from the dominant white population their ancestors had faced obstacles like the alien land more and laws against mixed marriages so compared to the white population they were already vulnerable when the war started the US government worried that they might rise up and commit mass sabotage that was the perceived unruliness and so on President Roosevelt's orders 120,000 people had their ordinary rights suspended and were imprisoned in concentration camps the state took a bunch of people who were in their eyes potentially unruly drew a line around them said everybody within that line is the same in terms of their threat to us regardless of how much individual evidence we may have for their cases and use that line as an excuse to literally lock them up so to sum up the concept of race functions as technology in a three-fold way firstly it classifies people according to their perceived unruliness secondly it disguises that classification under criteria that are politically neutral like skin color and finally it hides the true relationship of violence between citizens and sovereign power sheth's model of race is neither biological category nor social construct rather race latches on to certain observable variations in humans sometimes biological sometimes not and attaches socio-political importance to them in order to preserve power and this might actually explain a lot discriminating against somebody because their skin is a different color it's difficult to understand why anyone would do that but discriminating against somebody because you've been told people like them are a threat suddenly that's a lot easier to understand and it might explain a few things too like how young black men in the US are much more likely to be bought threatening and therefore shot by the police than young white men race is more than just a biological Katamon it's a socio-political one it's worth noting that once racialization becomes part of the law and the common discourse we can perpetuate it without even meaning to or realizing shets work has the power to transform not only our understanding of race but our understanding of racism you might have heard people say I have not racist because I don't hate anyone because of the color of their skin well now we know there's more to race than that we are better equipped to identify racist thinking in others and in ourselves I've had the misfortune of meeting a few racists in my time and they won't tell you that they hate people because of the color of their skin they'll tell you that people like that are aggressive or lazy or rude or whatever it is you may have also heard people say you can't be racist towards white people and at first glance that could look very odd but if chef is right that race comes from power given that white people have historically held the balance of power we can see that racism is a more specialized and technical subset of discrimination obviously if anyone were to just to quote the dictionary definition of racism or the common definition of racism to try and refute that they would be begging the question against all of shets work you would need to actually engage with their arguments which leads me finally to this there are some final concerns to address before we finish part 1 firstly does this erase racial identity some people very proudly self-identify as members of a certain race but if race is a tool of division and oppression created by the powerful then aren't we taking that identity away from them chef considers that and says no racial self-identity follows after a population has already been racialized the racialized population learns from sovereign power to identify themselves as different from them they are to be distinguished and we can have both secondly we've talked a lot of other failings of liberalism in this episode does that mean that liberalism as a project is doomed that fairness and equality and justice can't be had well not necessarily but what we need to realize is that the ideal of a liberal society is one that we often fall short of fairness democracy equality these might be worth striving for but we need to recognize not only where we fail to get them but also where we set ourselves up to fail some people I'm sure are going to say that chef is redefining the word race and you can't just redefine words well hold your horses there because she's not just plucking a new definition out of thin air so much as she is arguing that the old definition in the dictionaries and the common discourse actually leaves a lot of very important things out and if we wanted to critique chef's ideas if you're writing an essay or comment then the thing to do would be to ask does her model of race explain how we see the concept actually being used in the world not just how the dictionary says we should see it being used does it make any predictions about what we might observe does it explain any of the things we observed I've suggested already some ways in which it might easy useful remember though that it also makes some predictions about whose evidence we are more likely to think is authoritative in a society governed by sovereign power so what do you think of schatz work on race and power if you'd like a firmer grasp of how this theory translates into reality then you can click on my face right now and head on over to part two or I'll be discussing the racialization of Muslims there is a little bit more to racialization that I had time to mention today so if you want to hear more about it you can pick up a copy of Professor Schatz book leave me a comment telling me what you thought next time we could either look at John Stuart Mill's essay on Liberty or we could discuss what is fate and for more philosophical videos every Friday please subscribe this episode was sponsored by audible.com if you go to audibletrial.com/preneurcast you can cancel at any time and every time one of you signs up I get a tiny bit of cash which I really really appreciate
[[Professor Laurent Dubois/Soccer Politics
Instructor]] “Really brilliant chess players are able
to think way in advance right? The great midfielders in soccer have that
sense of ability to predict where their position is, but then what that kind of pass will lead
too, right?” “Soccer politics is a class offered here
at Duke and it’s unique in that we have, we offer it as one lecture in English but
then there are multiple language sections. (Student speaking French) So this year students are taking it in French,
Spanish, Italian and English.
So we kind of bring together the language
and the teaching about the history of the sport for this kind of global look at the
sport and culture.”.