[Peace-discuss] local issues

[C. G. Estabrook]

John--

Those two POVs are "diametrically opposite" only if you exaggerate them to the
point of parody, as you do.  In a reasonable form, they're both suggested by the
comment from Jefferson's old age that I quoted.

In contrast with your tendentious summary, he describes

       [1] "Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in
them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the
most wise [sic] depositary of the public interests"; and

       [2] "Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers
from them into the hands of the higher classes."

Jefferson notes that those ideas are what he calls "natural":

        "In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they
are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them,
therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories,
Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you
please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one
of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."
       --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

Writing in the infancy of capitalism, Jefferson understandably does not give so
sharp a description of the modern form of those ideas as did a younger
contemporary, a now-forgotten German classicist who wrote, a few years after
Jefferson's comment, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles" -- and then devoted his life to describing the
nature of that struggle in capitalism, and how capitalism hides it.

In our situation, we don't of course know that a constitutional convention will
craft a better organic law, but it's aristocratic and anti-democratic in
Jefferson's terms to say that they don't have the right to do it.

And you don't seriously mean to suggest that you can't see who the aristocrats
are in this business-dominated society, where "Politics is the shadow cast on
society by big business," as the social philosopher John Dewey put it almost a
century ago.

Your prognosis -- quite possible if pessimistic -- obviously accepts a version
of the struggle Jefferson and Marx describe: '...the political/socioeconomic
elite in Illinois will prevent the 'great beast' from having anything meaningful
to do with creating a new constitution, and the 'great beast' will be so
uninformed and confused that they'll have no idea what they're actually voting
on, or what the implications are."

If you're right, what then should be done?  It seems to me that we should
encourage "a hundred flowers bloom, a thousand schools of thought contend." But
it's surely silly to reject an idea because of who believes in it.  On News from
Neptune we've for years cited The Incompleteness Principle, viz., "Nobody can be
wrong all the time."  (And I have the impression that the guy you mention is not
stupid -- altho' that of course wouldn't justify his opinion.)  --CGE


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Unless persuaded otherwise, I'll vote for the constitutional convention and 
> against the sales tax increase.
> 
> *Some of the opposition to the constitutional convention looks like coming 
> from those who fear Hamilton's "great beast." The attitude seems to be that 
> politics should remain under the control of competent professionals -- God 
> knows what might happen if you let the redneck majority get their hands on 
> it.  But it seems to me that Jefferson's balanced comment should guide us, if
>  we take democracy seriously, when he distinguished between "Those who fear 
> and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands
>  of the higher classes [and] Those who identify themselves with the people, 
> have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and 
> safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests."
> 
> 
> It's just absolutely amazing to me, Carl, how you are able to hold two 
> diametrically opposite points of view and not perceive any inconsistency 
> between them.  Here is a perfect example.
> 
> 1) Hamilton's "great beast" will, if given the chance, sculpt a new Illinois 
> Constitution that will be an improvement over the 1970 version and in the 
> best interests of Illinois citizens.
> 
> 2) Everything in American society is controlled for nefarious purposes by 
> some sort of elite - the "tertiary meritocracy" or whatever the hell you call
>  it - aided and abetted by Big Media.
> 
> The only way I can harmonize these two thoughts is to conclude with what I 
> think is the truth, actually - the political/socioeconomic elite in Illinois 
> will prevent the "great beast" from having anything meaningful to do with 
> creating a new constitution, and the "great beast" will be so uninformed and 
> confused that they'll have no idea what they're actually voting on, or what 
> the implications are.
> 
> For my part, John Bambenek is in favor of an Illinois Constitutional 
> Convention.  That's all I need to know.  If he's for it, I'm against it. 
> Anyone who has read Bambi through the years will know precisely what I'm 
> talking about.