Reflections on Greek Season 1

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Season 1 of the ABC Family Show: Greek. The Author is not responsible for anyone who reads this and learns things they don’t already know about the show.

A brief overview of major characters:

Rusty: Rusty is the lead character on the show; the series follows mainly his development since the beginning of Freshman year of college at Cyprus-Rhodes, located in Ohio. Rusty is a nerdy science major who decides to pledge a frat.

Cappie: Cappie is the president of the Kappa Tau frat, which is similar to the frat shown in Animal House. He dated Casey, Rusty’s older sister in his freshman year: he is currently a junior.

Evan: Evan is the pledge coordinator of the Omega Chi frat, which is primarily made up of preps. Evan is also Casey’s current boyfriend and the heir to a million dollar corporation run by his father.

Casey: Casey is Rusty’s older sister who is, at the beginning of season one, Rush Chair for her Sorority Zeta Beta Zeta. Casey is the girlfriend of Evan.

Dale: Dale is Rusty’s roommate and comes from an ultra-conservative Southern Baptist southern family. He is also a science major and the “moral” influence in the show.

Ashleigh: Ashleigh is friends with Casey, her partner in crime so to speak. She is an airhead who merely cares about her appearance. She is dating a guy at Brown University at the beginning of Season 1. She is also a member of ZBZ.

Rebecca: Rebecca is a pledge of ZBZ and sleeps with Casey’s boyfriend Evan in the Pilot episode. She is the daughter of a successful and prominent Senator.

Calvin: Calvin meets Rusty on Rush night when potential pledges visit each house so that the frat or sorority can decide who they wish to pledge their house: Calvin pledges Omega Chi. He is also gay.

Jen K.: Jen K. is Rusty’s girlfriend and also a pledge for ZBZ. She is a legacy for the sorority and so is automatically accepted. She is a journalism major.

Frannie: Frannie is a minor major character who is President of Zeta Beta Zeta at the beginning of Season 1. She and Casey are friends at the beginning as it was Frannie who recruited and molded Casey into what she is at the beginning of the show.

At the beginning of the Pilot we see Rusty who is your typical nerd, scrawny armed 18 year old male. His older sister Casey is your typical hot chick who seems to only care about her hair, and her clothes in the beginning. Dale is introduced next and the first thing noticeable with Dale is he asks Rusty “Where are you from?” and when Rusty replies “Chicago” Dale says, “Ah, a Yankee.” Dale is the stereotypical deep southern. He has a crucifix on his wall and promptly displays the Confederate Battle Flag for the whole world to see. It is clear from the beginning that we have three character types who are each going to influence each other in some major ways over the course of the series.

When we meet Casey we also meet Ashleigh and Frannie, both of whom seem to only be concerned with their clothes, makeup, and hair. It is unclear why Casey later on remains friends with either of these characters. Casey’s boyfriend Evan meets Rusty and it is clear that Casey has never before mentioned that she has a brother. Rusty’s decision to pledge a fraternity comes down to one simple fact; he wants a real college experience. Casey rightly points out that he isn’t fraternity material using his major as the prime example of how he will be laughed out of the system. Nevertheless Rusty swears he will become a pledge for a fraternity. On the night of the house visits one might think that Rusty will pledge with Omega Chi, namely because his sister’s boyfriend is the Pledge cooridinator. Yet then he visits the Kappa Tau house and we meet the very drunk Cappie for the first time. Cappie is astonished to find out that Casey, whom he dated freshman year, has a little brother and we find out immediately that Cappie knows Casey in the “biblical” sense. Rusty acquires his nickname while visiting the Kappa Tau house when he performs his first body shot with a very beautiful young woman. Rusty who has never had tequila before spits the liquor back into the girl’s face only to face the wrath of her boyfriend. Rusty wittingly inquires of the man, “you’re upset that I spit in her face but licking her stomach is ok?” This is Rusty’s first taste of the moral ambiguity that the show possess. What makes it ok in the mind of this boyfriend for random men to lick salt from his girlfriend’s body but he gets upset when Rusty spits the tequila back in her face? It is from this incident that Rusty acquires the nickname “Spitter.”

Leaving the Kappa Tau house Rusty returns to the Omega Chi house to engage in some partying. He finds Evan upstairs in his room getting ready to have sex with a beautiful woman we later learn to be Rebecca Logan, the daughter of one Senator Logan. Rusty is perplexed for the remainder of the episode as what to do about his sister’s boyfriend’s infidelity. Evan attempts to silence Rusty by offering him a bid to pledge Omega Chi, which it seems Rusty accepts. Ultimately Rusty visits his sister to inform her of what he saw the previous night, devastating Casey. Casey, whose immediate reaction to break up with Evan is calmed down by her friend and sorority President Frannie. Frannie’s reasoning is that how is it fair for Casey to give up her dreams based on one indiscretion by her boyfriend. Frannie waves the Presidency of the sorority in front of Casey arguing the only reason she would get it is by dating Evan. Ultimately Frannie tells Casey to “do what will make it right in your own mind.” Subsequently Casey decides to sleep with her ex-boyfriend Cappie for “revenge” on Evan. This is an interesting logic that is brought on by Frannie, and not by Casey. Frannie is the one who manipulates Casey into not breaking up with Evan because Frannie loves the fact Evan is a millionaire. Casey’s biggest flaw is agreeing with Frannie that it is unfair for Casey’s dreams to suffer for what Evan’s mistake. She is later called out on it by her brother as she picks him up from the police station.

Following the events of the day Rusty decides to go to the local bar “Dobbler’s” where the Omega Chi will do the pledge ceremony. He confronts Evan by telling him that he informed his sister of what he saw, only to get into a fight with Evan. Rusty ultimately finishes the fight by hitting Evan in the face with one of the pledge paddles: Evan orders Rusty be taken to jail. Rusty is amazed to hear that Casey will stay with Evan after what he has done and she becomes defensive. Using the same logic used on her earlier from Frannie, Casey justifies staying with Evan. She tells her brother that college isn’t black and white like high school, from here on out it is shades of gray. Certainly this might be true, college is more complex than high school is and if you treat high school and college the same then Casey says you’ll become a “social piranha.” This becomes a central theme to the show, whether or not one can still maintain a moral code that there are no shades of gray or if there are indeed situations that are.

Season one continues with Rusty acquiring a girlfriend named Jen K. and finding out that Calvin is gay. Meanwhile he fights with Dale over his situation with Jen K, whom he wants to have sex with by Dale will not tolerate happening in the room. Ultimately Rusty has to accept he and Dale are good friends and he has to appreciate him. Dale appears to be the only character who does not wish to accept that there are shades of gray, maintaining his belief in the black and white. Rusty walks the moral tight rope, trying to discover whether or not he can adhere to his sister’s assertion or whether Dale is right. Rusty ends up cheating for his Physics midterm because he is unable to teach himself the five chapters assigned for the test. This leads him to the conclude that college isn’t about learning, it’s about getting by and that college was suppose to be for him the last bastion of knowledge. But it is clear based on his physics class and professor that the school doesn’t care if they learn anything, or at least doesn’t care to teach him anything and that if he wants to find knowledge he has to seek it out for himself.

By being involved in Greek life on campus, Rusty is able to test his beliefs and acquire knowledge not found in the classroom. He is able to put what he has learned in the classroom to use in real life. Ultimately Rusty is faced with an article about the Greek life written by his girlfriend Jen K. He struggles with whether or not to break up with her as a result of her misleading him throughout their relationship. Everyone urges him to break up with her because she has betrayed the Greek system. Rusty does decide to end his relationship with Jen K. because he doesn’t know if she can be trusted. In a similar fashion, Evan breaks up with Casey because he thinks she is only dating him to get ahead in life. Frannie, who is ousted as President of Zeta Beta Zeta for allowing the problems that come up through the season to happen. Frannie, drunk, informs Evan that she was the reason Casey was still with him because she reminded Casey that Evan was her key to success. Evan, disillusioned by what Frannie has told him goes to Casey and breaks up with her.

All the events of Season 1 bring up an interesting question, Rusty wants to change who he is and it is not clear whether or not college is the place to do it. Casey wants to be successful within the Greek system; she is concerned with her public image. At the end of Season 1 Rusty doesn’t appear to have changed that much and Casey, after being appointed interim President doesn’t appear to only care about her public image. In fact, she goes to the National representative sent to investigate the article to tell her everything in it is true (90% of the “deeds” mentioned in the article involve Casey.) Fully expecting that she will be kicked out, or so she says, she is stunned when the representative names her President. It is unclear if the house will truly be able better with Casey in command come season 2. Rusty, who loved Jen K. has to deal with losing her over her misleading. Rusty and Casey are left at the end in a state of limbo. We are still left with whether or not one can change in college, and whether or not one can learn only by book learning or only by experience. Dale is the only example we have in the show who takes book learning over experience. Rusty, whether he is right or wrong believes he can learn a lot from experience but struggles with maintaining a balance between the two. Casey, Evan, Ashleigh, and Cappie are all convinced that Greek life is the best thing they can have. By the end of season 1 Casey has achieved her goal of becoming President of ZBZ and Cappie appears to be leaning towards the belief that there is more to life than sex and drinking. Evan is still struggling with becoming more than just the son of a millionaire and Ashleigh is trying to discovering who she really is and not simply defining herself with who she associates with.At this point it appears that for Rusty neither Dale nor Casey are right, there are certain things which are black and white but there are also things that are shades of gray. Ultimately the ends don’t justify the means all the time for Rusty. He does end up having sex, but not with a hot slut who wants to take his virginity but rather with his girlfriend whom he thinks he loves. He does steal a property of the Department of Defense to help fuel a model volcano, with the help of Dale nonetheless. At this point in the season it appears that Rusty only chooses Dale’s method when it affects him, but chooses Casey’s for all other situations.

Published in: on April 30, 2008 at 20:47  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

American involvment in revolutions in regards to the present problem in Mexico

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-Declaration of Independence

These words, which some might suggest are the most important words in the Declaration of Independence suggest that when a people are being overtly oppressed and placed “under absolute Despotism” that they ought to throw off that government and institute a new one. Whether or not these lines apply simply to the American people or to the people of the world is a difficult question to answer. However, history has shown that Americans have applied these passages to various other countries as a means of world empire. Even today we justify our reasons for going to war on account that the opposing regime is despotic and that the people should be freed to choose their own regime. Yet there is one example in which modern America has yet to take this stance, arguably the most important place for us to attempt such a coup on behalf of the people: Mexico. With the large amounts of illegal and legal immigrants crossing our borders daily it would seem prudent to suggest that the Mexican government has become despotic and that the people have chosen to leave their homeland in search of a security and safety.

Our views towards Mexico have remained the same since the Mexican-American War yet since then we have helped countless countries over throw their regimes in hopes of finding successful allies. To begin the Civil War is not counted among these wars as we never officially recognized the government of the Confederate States of America and the C.S.A. had no right to secede from the Union per the arguments in the Declaration sited above. Instead, the first example comes in the Spanish-American War when the United States, under an agreement with the Spanish colony of Cuba, agreed to help overthrow Spanish rule in Cuba and give the Cubans their unconditional freedom: some will argue that this was the dumbest mistake the United States has ever made. Among other countries we helped to free from under Spanish tyranny include the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Of these only Puerto Rico and Guam remain under U.S. control as commonwealths, while the Philippines is an independent country with close ties to the United States.

The Spanish American War was partially influenced by Progressive ideas that every country should be given the opportunity to self-determination, which ultimately meant a parliamentary style democracy. This is most blatantly seen in America’s causes for going to war with Germany in World War I. Rather than going to protect American interests in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson decided we should only go to war to help throw off the reigns of Totalitarianism. We helped to create an unstable Democratic German state under the Wiemar Republic, which we all know eventually lead to the rise of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. World War II for France and Great Britain came under the flag of granting Polish freedom (which wouldn’t be attained until the 1990′s.) For the U.S. states World War II was not necessarily a war to free a people from under despotism, but rather to defend America’s freedom from the Japanese and later the Germans. Ultimately, however, we helped to overthrow a regime that had existed for millennia in Japan and helped to create a free and democratic West Germany.

Less than five years after war ended with Germany and Japan the United States began engagements in two separate nations: Korea and Vietnam. The Korean War was fought by the U.N. with large amounts of U.S. troops. The entire purpose of going to war in Korea was to maintain South Korean independence and democracy from the invading North Koreans, Soviet Union and Chinese. Of the two wars fought in South-East Asia the Korean War is the only one where we succeeded in our goal of creating a stable democracy. To this day the South Korean regime is a model democracy in Far-East Asia. In the late 1940′s then U.S. President Harry S. Truman sent American advisers to Vietnam to advise the French on their efforts. By the 1960′s the French had left Vietnam leaving the United States as the last hope for South Vietnam to maintain a democratic regime. With the assassination of the Diem Brothers by President John F. Kennedy, our efforts to maintain the democratic south was slipping. By 1972 the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam under the condition that if the North attempted to attack the South again we would intervene; the South Vietnamese are still awaiting our help.

Of course the most well-known U.S. sponsored coup in our history happened with Cuba. Following Communist revolutionary, Fidel Castro’s victory in Cuba the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency helped sponsor a group of Cuban Nationals invade the tiny island and overthrow Castro’s new Communist regime. Ultimately the coup failed as the U.S. failed to supply sufficient support for the Cuban Nationals allowing the oppressive and despotic regime of Fidel Castro to rule Cuba until 2008.

This brings us to the 1980s with a little known revolution that took place in a Middle Eastern nation called Afghanistan. The Afghanistan revolt revolved around two parties, one backed by the Soviet Union and the other backed by the United States via Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX). Our support of freedom fighters called Mujahideen is one of the greatest blunders in our history. The U.S. CIA helped defeat the Soviet Union lead opposition by supplying weapons to the Mujahideen. When the Soviet Union pulled out in 1989 so did the U.S., leaving a devastated Afghanistan and the Taliban with an Anti-American flavor in their mouths.

In the 1990′s the U.S. once again attempted to help overthrow despotic regimes. The U.S. lead invasion of Iraq, in an attempt to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait would have ended with the U.S. lead overthrow of Saddam Hussein but instead the U.N. forced troops to leave having completed their mission. We would eventually return to Iraq only to complete our overthrow of Saddam and his regime. Along the way though President Bill Clinton got the U.S. involved in a number of wars including Kosovo and Bosnia. Kosovo is the only direct evidence of this theme of American involvement in overthrowing regimes. Yet we lead efforts at least three times in the 1990′s to attempt to establish democracies throughout the Middle East and former Soviet Bloc.

By the year 2000 the U.S. was primed to go to war on behalf of other nations once again, this time under President George W. Bush. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while continuations of efforts made in the late 80′s and early 90′s, were also fought under the old Progressive banner of self-determination. To this day the American military has maintained a presence in both nations despite popular American support against the wars. Meanwhile, the U.S. has refused to take similar actions in nations on our own continent including Mexico, and Venezuela (who happens to be the largest U.S. oil supplier in the world.) A simple observation of the Mexican regime makes it clear that it is beyond despotic and that the Mexican people need to overthrow such a regime. But Mexico has a long history of revolution followed by revolution and thus it would be prudent if the U.S. were to engage supporting a new revolution. Or maybe the long history of American involvement in revolutions is a clear indicator that it was only proper for America to revolt back in 1776. We have largely failed in our efforts to provide democratic regimes to the world. This does not mean that the U.S. should back down from securing it’s own boarders against various enemy regimes.

Mexico is a hopeless cause that we should only engage in helping if Mexico becomes a threat to the United States; which it has already become. The United States has just cause for going to war with a country that has been invading it for decades.

Published in: on April 29, 2008 at 14:46  Comments (2)  

Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglass style Debate

I must say that when I first heard this I was in awe of Senator Clinton. I don’t agree with either candidate on almost all the issues but to challenge one to a Lincoln-Douglass style debate takes a lot of nerve. For those who don’t know what a Lincoln-Douglass debate is exactly let me tell you briefly. In the 19th century debates were much different than they are today. Typically these debates lasted for hours, not the one to two hours they last today but three to five hours. Debaters would take the stage and give a speech lasting about an hour or two followed by their opponent giving an equally long speech. After the second speech the first debater would take the stand again thus ending the debate.

What Senator Clinton has challenged Senator Obama to isn’t necessarily a Lincoln-Douglass debate because Clinton wants a chance for the two Senators to ask each other questions without a moderator. Clinton has to have a lot of guts to do this because such a debate could come to bite her in the rear. What is more, such a debate could end up hurting the Democratic party in the long run. Typical debates done today are safe, they offer the candidates a chance to offer sound bytes for the media to play over and over again. This style debate would not offer such a chance because either candidate could ask the other whatever they wish with little or no preparation in advance. With Indiana and North Carolina holding their primaries in just nine days such a debate could turn the tables against Obama or Clinton based on what the other asks.

However, this might not actually be a true challenge but rather an attempt by Senator Clinton to win support knowing that Obama will not accept the challenge. Obama would be stupid to accept the challenge, but at the same time he has threated his chances to win support by backing out. This is a terrific power play by Senator Clinton because she knows that either move that Obama makes could destroy his presidential hopes. Clinton, a seasoned politician in comparison to Obama knows how to call another’s bluff. At the same time both Senators are trained lawyers and know how to win a case easily and this is exactly the type of move one should expect from either candidate. The debate would be epic if Senator Obama decided to accept the challenge.

Senator Clinton is desperate to end Senator Obama’s chance at the White House, with her victory in Pennsylvania just a few days ago she is still alive. The longer the nomination process goes until the Democratic Convention the worse off the party could be come November. Senator Clinton is well aware of this and knows she has to present a winning blow against Obama. As the month of May approaches quickly the title of presumptive Nominee is all the more important for both Senators so that they can focus on their efforts of winning the White House. History has shown that a Lincoln-Douglass debate would help force the issue to the forefront. But this also presents a chance for Senator Clinton to place Obama between a rock and a hard place. In order to win the Democrat nominee title Clinton knows that she must force Obama to make a mistake.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates are the most epic debates in American history and to challenge another to such a debate in this day in age is a masterful move. Neither candidate is prepared for such a debate as they are use to the sound byte debate. One must wonder whether Clinton is just bluffing, expecting Obama to back down and appear cowardly or if she truly wants to enter an epic debate where there is no moderator and all questions are game.

Published in: on April 27, 2008 at 18:39  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Views on our nations forthcoming election.

Previously I have posted my comments on the forthcoming presidential election in the U.S. In my first post I made a case that America cannot afford to have any of the individuals who declared their candidacy for President. After sometime and many of the candidates dropped from the race I formally presented my argument for why I disagree with John McCain on many of his platforms. I must say this now that despite my ill feelings towards Senator McCain’s beliefs on key issues, I will nonetheless through my support behind him. However, I feel the need to lay out my beliefs on the election and on the current status of American politics.

As anyone can see I am a conservative, whether or not I am a Republican is up for debate. What does it mean to be a conservative exactly? In the proper sense to be a conservative is the conserve the status quo but in another sense (often times viewed as dangerous) to be conservative means to return to a previous time: I belong to the latter. To neglect this side of the conservative movement is to give up on hope. In today’s world we are called upon to accept how things are and just get use to it rather than wish for something better. This notion is what has caused a decay in the American political system for some time now. We have lost track of what this nation was founded to do. The issues that will be important for the election, as they have been for some time and will continue to be, are vital to America. Among these issues are Immigration, Abortion, Death Penalty, Homosexual Marriage and the like. It was commented on my blog that I should just accept abortion and move on; morally I cannot do that and as an American citizen I would fail to live up to my obligations just to accept things.

Politics is aimed at the good, as defined by Aristotle this good is happiness. Coupled with Politics is the Noble, or virtue. In America we still have some notion of what the good is but have completely forgotten about what politics and virtue are. Let me make this abundantly clear: there is such a thing as right and wrong and they are not subjective to the individual person. Our citizens in general have lost sight of this and thus we have our present circumstances. In the Democratic party we have a potential nominee who stands for nothing more than hope and change, so did Adolf Hitler. In the Republic party we have a presumptive nominee who appears to be a unifying force in the country as he has both liberal and conservative stances. Whether or not either of these is good for our country should be clear to us all, they are not. The danger of electing either Barack Obama or John McCain is not that they are bad men, but that their beliefs in the hands of the people will bring about the destruction of liberty. Morality is key to the preservation to the body politic; Locke argues that the purpose of the civil society is to enforce and uphold the Law of Nature. I do not see a person in politics today who wants to do this.

In today’s America the election of the President of the United States is the most important decision an American can or will ever make. The President yields far more power than he has in the history of the office. Can the President have an effect on issues? Of course he can there is something called Presidential veto. Within the next President’s term it is possible that Justice Stevens will be retiring: Justice Stevens is one of the most liberal members of the High Court and with Justice Kennedy siding mostly with the Conservatives the appointment of a strong conservative Justice would be a positive thing. Like the President, the Supreme Court has more authority now than it did ever in it’s history. Thus the President, on an issue like abortion, could choose to veto a law that extends abortion rights or appoint a conservative Justice to the bench who will help overturn abortion laws as they are brought to the court. When it comes to issues of immorality such as Abortion and Homosexuality I think it is clear from the past two elections that the American people are vastly against both. President Bush is ardently against both issues and the fact that he won the popular vote in 2004, and received the largest number of votes in history is key. The President does have sway over legislation in America even if he doesn’t have the authority to create law: the President as all branches of our government should do everything in their power to uphold the Law of Nature.

The fundamental right we possess as American citizens, nay as a citizen in general is to voice our opinion and gain support for our ideology. John Adams defines an aristocrat as a man who has two votes, his own and someone else’s. The first amendment, via the Free Speech clause, is a wholly political amendment calling on the citizens (those who are capable of ruling and being ruled according to Aristotle) to voice their opinions about political matters. With the exception of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses the entire amendment deals with how the citizens are to conduct their political affairs. By submitting to the way things are simply because no one else wants to agree with you is cowardliness behavior. If I can get two people to agree that my way of thinking is right and that they will vote as I would vote then I have succeeded in my duty as a citizen. The fact that I do not want to conserve the status quo, that I want to return to what I believe is a better time in American history is exactly what makes me a conservative of the second degree. I will promote my beliefs for as long as I have the title of citizen and will defend to my death the right of any other citizen to do the same.

John McCain is dangerous to America, but Obama and Clinton are far worse. As we always have a choice, I will choose to vote for the lesser of evils. I recognize that we must prevent either Democrat from winning the November election, but that does not mean that I should stand idly by and accept wholly what the Republicans say when I view them to be wrong too. The job of our representatives is to listen to the voices of their constituency. I will never stop trying to reform this country because it will never be perfect, but it can be more perfect than it is. The youth of America are fundamentally apathetic towards politics even if they do engage in their civic duties. We shouldn’t just sit around and accept things thinking it doesn’t matter what one thinks because it will never change. Your individual vote and voice do matter and to think otherwise is to fall into the liberal trap. On election day go out and vote, vote for whomever you wish but don’t think that just because they are our options in 2008 that you can’t change how things are for 2012. If enough people want change it will happen.

Published in: on April 10, 2008 at 23:38  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments on John Adams letter to Samuel Adams from 18 Oct. 1790

As the American Constitution of 1787 went into effect focus shifted from how to create a new political order to how to preserve it. John Adams, the Second President of the United States, in the autumn of 1790 wrote to his cousin Samuel with his thoughts on how to preserve the American political system. Adams presents three main principles to preserve the American system of government.

The first problem presented by Adams for the new republic was the competing notions of the commerce of luxury and the commerce of economics, called by Adams, “hay, wood and stubble” in reference to Montesquieu. How is it that this government will be able to escape the problem of Europe? Adams suggests that the “prevalence of knowledge and benevolence” are the necessary elements in this endeavor. It is curious that Adams suggests benevolence as a cure for the problem of the commerce of luxury, as benevolence calls to mind piety. For the ancients, piety was one of the main elements needed to moderate the soul. Curiously, Adams is suggesting that piety is necessary in this new republic in order to temper the collective soul of America. Secondly, Adams is calling for a knowledgeable people in America. In fact in his essay Thoughts on Government, Adams calls for liberal education specifically of the lower classes. Once again in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Adams states, “Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.”[1] Adams places an emphasis on education as a means of preserving liberty. Knowledge and piety, through the manner of benevolence, are necessary for the preservation of the commerce of economics: or prevention against tyranny.

Adams adds a third element for the preservation of this new regime, namely virtue. Adams contrasts knowledge, virtue and benevolence with ignorance, error and vice. He states, “If there were no ignorance, error, or vice, there would be neither principles nor systems of civil or political government.” Of course this hearkens to the Federalist Papers statement, “If men were angels there would be no need for government.” Knowledge, virtue and benevolence must be implemented by the government in order to over come human nature. The best regime to instill these qualities in people and to preserve liberty is discussed next by John Adams.

Republicanism stands as the best method to preserve liberty within the body politic for John Adams. Adams defines republic as, “a government in which the people have collectively, or by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty.” However, Adams does not wish for our country to have a republican form of Poland, Venice, Holland or Bern as he calls them no different, “than the monarchical form in France before the late revolution.” In order to understand what Adams means by this, it is prudent to explain these examples. Poland between 1569 and1795 was a Commonwealth comprised of a single house parliament composed of nobility. Any member of the parliament could abolish it or veto any law it passed. As a fundamental principle, Adams professed that there should be a bi-cameral system of the legislator. Poland violated this principle, making it no better than an absolute monarchy like in France. The Venetian Republic was comprised of an executive and legislative branch of government, with the nobility comprising the legislative assembly. The Venetian Republic was very close to the model of the Roman Republic, which was based on the Commerce of Luxury. Once again, the Venetian Republic violated to the principle of a two house legislator. Holland was a confederate regime with a weak central government and independent states. Once again, the nobility was in charge of government affairs in the Dutch Republic. The system of Bern, which is the capital of Switzerland today, was originally a Dutch style Confederation of independent states. For Adams these regimes lacked the fundamental principles by which a Republic can stand. How Adams envisions the composition of a Republic is left off for later in the letter. Rather, he states, “For, after a fair of trial of its miseries, the simple monarchial for will ever be, as it is has ever been, preferred to it by mankind.” Simply put, republican government is apt to suffer miseries and will eventually dissolve into a simple monarchy. Adams rightly points out that monarchy has always been the preferred method of government by mankind.

In an attempt to explain why it is that monarchy has been preferred over republic, Adams describes the English situation. Adams declares, “They [the English] have succeeded to such a degree, that, with a vast majority of that nation, a republican is as unamiable as a witch, a blasphemer, a rebel, or a tyrant.” Witch and blasphemer are affronts against God, while rebel and tyrant are analogous for affronts against liberty. The most blatant charges against republic is that it produces impious citizens, and that it destroys liberty. For the ancients the regime imitated the divine, and the divine were governed by monarchy: for Christianity the king was divinely ordained by God to rule and so it appears monarchy is the divinely appointed regime. In republics, because it is not the divine regime, the people will tend away from religion and so a good republic will instill a sense of piety within the people.

Secondly, the people are the worst protectors of their own liberty: Thus a regime based on the power of the people would appear as the most unable to protect liberty. How republic can maintain liberty is discussed later by Adams through the implementation of two exterior checks. For now Adams argues that government must cultivate knowledge and benevolence as a method of maintaining liberty and piety within the people. Virtue is a product of knowledge and benevolence and so the republic which instills knowledge and benevolence will produce virtuous citizens. But this is not enough, Adams argues if we wish for the American people not to, “renounce, detest and execrate” the word republic as the English, then there must be “explanations, restrictions and limitations” placed on republic. Adams has provided the explanation of republic and how to combat the problem of the people: Adams is aware that benevolence, virtue and knowledge will not be enough to maintain republican form. Human nature is too powerful to be overcome by these qualities alone, and so needs physical barriers to prevent human nature from destroying liberty.

The first obstacle to self government is human nature, which Adams describes as, “the ocean, its tides and storms.” Adams defines these tides and storms as, “Human appetites, passions, prejudices, and self love.” In order to conquer them, human means are the least helpful. And so religion and education are unable to temper human nature. Religion as Adams states is dependent upon the idea of the Messiah returning and ruling over the world. As this event is still in the future, it cannot be used as the only means against human nature. Universal education, a principle of government for John Adams, is not accepted by the governments of Europe and so knowledge via education cannot depended upon. The people cannot depend on themselves for the preservation of “safety, liberty and security.” Instead the two methods will stand together as “dikes” against “the ocean, its tides and storms” with other natural barriers. These natural barriers were established as a means of preserving liberty.

The first of these barriers Adams wishes to place on society is the development of nobility out of the natural aristocracy. He asserts that “prejudice, passion and private interest” are the roots of the destruction of liberty. These three elements counter public principles, motives and arguments. The nobility when placed without a check has contrived to destroy stability and liberty through summa imperii. However, Adams counters, “So have the plebeians; so have the people; so have kings; so has human nature…” But the nobility, Adams asserts, has also been the greatest protector of liberty. The people and king have only attempted to destroy liberty when given the chance, and so there must be a check on them in the form of the nobility. Adams makes it clear to his cousin that he does not imply to mean hereditary conventional nobility, rather a “natural and actual aristocracy among mankind”: We cannot deny the existence of natural aristocracy. The people, “only serve to foment prejudice, jealousy, envy, animosity, and malevolence. They serve no ends but those of sophistry, fraud and the spirit of party. It would be true, but it would not be more egregiously false, to say that the people have waged everlasting war against the rights of men.” But the nobility, they have been the ones to protect liberty in Europe; it was the noble class who gave England it’s celebrated Magna Carta, not the people nor the king.

Love of liberty according to Samuel Adams “‘is interwoven in the soul of man’”. John takes the opportunity to elaborate on his cousin’s observation. In Jean la Fontaine’s The Wolf and the Lamb, Adams finds that the wolf is a lover of liberty much like man. Together he finds that man and the wolf must be solitary creatures in order to enjoy this love of liberty. Only when man becomes “rational, generous, or social” through enlightenment of “experience, reflection, education, civil, and political institutions” that he can live outside of solitude. The wolf in the story chooses to live alone, lean and hungry because he sees that dogs who live sleek and plump must live under restraint. Like the dog, some men in the past have chosen, “ease, slumber and good cheer to liberty.” The people, as a result, cannot be depended upon alone to preserve liberty: neither can a simple love of liberty within the people be depended upon: The people will quickly forsake their liberty for simple monarchy. So we must introduce political institutions that will fight against tyranny. Yet, in those institutions those without money will always attempt to destroy those with money. In reference back to Aristotle’s Politics, where the democrat fights the oligarch, the poor will desire to destroy the wealthy. But the wealthy will only put up with this for so long when, as in they did in Rome, will tire of the poor. The people and nobility must be checked against each other so as not to allow either to become complacent. For Adams this would be found in a bicameral legislature with one house being for the nobility and the second house for the people. By making the people members of the government, you allow them to be responsible for the preservation of their own liberty. But the people will contrive to destroy that liberty and so the nobility must stand as a vanguard against the destruction of liberty and so they must be placed against the people in the legislature. The people and nobility must stand against each other to prevent either from destroying liberty. The only preservation of liberty is found in a bicameral legislature.

For all the good nobility can and has done for the preservation of liberty, Adams is not blind to how much nobility has contrived to destroy liberty as well. The people according to Adams “pretended to nothing but to be villains, vassals, and retainers to the king or the nobles.” The nobles themselves were not truly free either according to Adams, “because all was determined by a majority of their votes, or by arms, not by law.” This leads to the second problem in the preservation of liberty, family popularity. He asserts that the overthrow of monarchs by the nobility was for little more than to support ambition and family pride. Pride itself is identified as the concomitant of “riches, of knowledge, of genius, of talents, of beauty, of strength, of virtue, and even of piety.” Pride must be brought under check, but Adams rightly points out that family pride would have been nothing if family popularity had not been established. People attach themselves to popular families and as such causes the person to feel a great sense of pride, e.g. the people who attached themselves to the Kennedy family in the 20th century. But this problem according to Adams will always exist, “As long as gratitude or interest, ambition or avarice, love, hope or fear, shall be human motives of action, so long will numbers attach themselves to particular families.” This similar situation existed in ancient Rome, when plebeians would often attach themselves to patrician families in order to serve their ambition to power.

Popularity must be guarded against so as not to allow a single man or family too much power within society to risk the destruction of liberty. The power behind popularity of this kind according to Adams “will be employed to mortify enemies, gratify friends, procure votes, emoluments and power.” Therefore, to check the power of popularity Adams suggests placing “two watches upon them” namely a king and the people. Yet the problem with family popularity is its ability to create factions. Party and mobbish spirits can be traced to popular families. Adams quotes Tarquin, “In nove populo, ubi omnis repentina atque ex virtute nobilitas fit, futurum locum forti ac strenuo viro.” This stands in contrast to the traditional well born of societies where in America the nobility stems from a sudden out growth from the individual virtue. But still Adams fears that popularity of one family will cause other families to become envious. Those who would acquire their position by real merit will be overshadowed by the families: And so how can the family popularity be overcome? The nobles are necessary in society for the preservation of liberty, but the people will become pawns in the ever ambitious attitudes of the nobles.

Adams proposes that there be an arbitrator between the nobles and the people: What this arbitrator might be is not entirely clear. One could suggest that it might be law itself, as Adams points out previously that the nobles are not truly free without law. However, law only protects noble from noble so as not to cause majority tyranny. The King has already been suggested as being placed on the other side of the nobles opposite the people. But we already know from the need of a bicameral legislature that the King cannot properly be this arbitrator. As Adams has already expressed the need for independent legislature and executive, the only branch left is the judicial. To preserve liberty we must have nobility, but that nobility in order to not destroy itself must be restrained by law. The people must be restrained by the nobility, as ought the king. But how are the people to be protected from the nobility except to make them subject to the same law. And by making the people subject to the same law allow for an independent arbitrator to be established to maintain justice and prevent the creation of a conventional aristocracy.

John Adams presents for his cousin Sam and for us readers the need for a defect in society. This defect will serve to cause people to continuously pay attention to the matters of government. The rule of law, bicameral legislature, an executive and independent judiciary are all methods to preserve liberty and together they must promote knowledge, virtue and benevolence within the people. The rule of law will restrict and set free the nobility. A bicameral legislature and executive will place the people, nobility and king against either other and allow none to seize too much power and destroy liberty: The people cannot be trusted to maintain their own liberty and so there must be a nobility. Together the nobility and people will check each other in the bicameral legislature. Because the nobility cannot be trusted, there must be something superior to them and the people to check it’s authority. The executive, or king, is placed above the nobility in the upper house of the legislature and the people are placed in the lower house. Finally the arbitrator between the people and the nobility will be the judicial, who will have the authority to maintain the rule of law. The nobility will naturally attempt to seize power for itself through popularity of families, so in order to prevent this there must be a guardian of the law which was established to free the nobility.

[1] Massachusetts Constitution Part The Second, Chapter V, Section II

Published in: on April 7, 2008 at 14:46  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why We Went to War.

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

-John Adams

It might be easy to say that the American Revolution began on that night in 1775 when the British regulars came ashore in Boston headed for weapon caches in Lexington and Concord. To say that the shots fired at Lexington and Concord were the cause the of the American Revolution is to completely ignore the events that lead to that night in 1775. Following the French and Indian War (also know as the 7 Years War to Europeans), the British government determined that they would make the Americans pay for the war that they started. While the British government taxed the American colonists before, following the French and Indian War the involvement of the British government grew to something unseen in the American colonies. In 1765 the British Parliament began efforts to pay off the debts from the war through the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was established as a means of taxing the American colonies by requiring all commercial and legal documents to bear a legal stamp. This was the first time the British had ever directly taxed the American colonies. The act, which took effect in November of 1765, was met with harsh resistance from the people. It was from this first taxation that the Revolution era saying, “No Taxation without Representation” took hold. Various forms of resistance were taken by the colonists including boycotting British made products to destroying the prints where the stamps were made. The Sons of Liberty were the radicals who encouraged the more violent forms of protest that lead to the destruction of the prints. In October of that year the Massachusetts legislature spearheaded an effort to hold an inter-colonial meeting for the first time.

The Stamp Act Congress convened in October of 1765 in New York City. Nine of the thirteen colonies attended the Congress including, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina. From this Stamp Act Congress came a letter to King George III, petitions to the British Parliament and the Declaration of Rights and Grievances. Among the points raised in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances are:

1.Only Colonial assemblies have a right to tax the colonies.

2.Trial by Jury was a right, and the use of Admiralty Courts was abusive.

3.Colonists possessed all the rights of Englishmen.

4. Without voting rights, Parliament could not represent the colonists.

The Stamp Act was repealed in March of 1766 by the British Parliament only to be replaced a year later with the Townshend Acts. But by admitting that the British crown in fact had no right to tax the colonies, a right held by the government to do, the Americans were in fact rebelling against British imperial rule over America. The Stamp Act Congress was the first time the colonies came together from all three major regions: New England, Middle, and South. It was in 1765 that the wheels began to turn that caused the colonists to refer to themselves not as Englishmen but as Americans. The American Revolution began the day the colonies met in the Stamp Act Congress.

The American Revolution was not just the war that occurred between 1775 and 1783. The war itself was a product of the Revolution. In the Declaration of Independence the fighting at Lexington and Concord did not even receive direct mention. At the heart of the charges against the King is the fact the British interfered in the running of affairs in North America. Since the Royal Colony of Virginia was established the colonists had maintained a certain level of self government without interference from the British. The Stamp Act, a tax, was at the heart of the molestation by the British. The American colonists believed that laws could not be forced upon someone without their consent. Taxation was only permitted if you have the consent of those whom you are taxing. The American Revolution began in October of 1765 when nine of the thirteen colonies formally questioned the authority of the King to rule in America.[5] The American Revolution did in fact begin long before the war itself commenced. It was because of taxation that the people of Boston stored caches of weapons in Lexington and Concord. It was because of the Boston Tea Party, which was sparked by the Tea Act that caused the British to send troops into Boston. Lexington and Concord were products of the actions taken by the American colonists to prevent illegal taxation by the British. The American Revolution and the War for Independence are two different ideas that encompass each other. The American Revolution was the intellectual developments that occurred beginning in 1765. The War for Independence started off in 1775 in Lexington and Concord and served as the military arm of the Revolution. But as Adams said, the Revolution was already affected in the minds of the people long before the shot heard around the world. The events that took place that night in Lexington and Concord were the climax of a decade’s worth of resistance by the colonies to English taxation.

Footnotes

 [1]It is interesting to note that the Constitution of 1787 required 9 of the 13 colonies to ratify and make it the legal form of government in the United States.

Published in: on April 2, 2008 at 18:33  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

On Democracy

Aristotle discusses democracy in two distinct places in the Politics. The first discussion takes place in book four where Aristotle lays out the kinds of democracies. The second place is in book six where Aristotle discusses the nature of democracy, equality in democracy, types of democracy and how to preserve it. While democracy is not one of the three best regimes, as it is a deviant regime, it does possess qualities that Aristotle finds admirable for politics. While our understanding today is that every nation, regardless of its traditions, ought to have a democracy, Aristotle differed believing each polis ought to have a regime best suited for the type of inhabitants. We can, however, learn much from Aristotle’s discussion on democracy because it is so popular in theory throughout the world.

Aristotle first lays out the variations on democracy in book four of the Politics and they are, “is that which is particularly said to be based on equality. The law in this sort of democracy asserts that there is equality when the poor are no more preeminent than the well off, and neither have authority, but they are both [treated as] similar(1291b29-33). The second form, “where offices are filled on the basis of assessments, but these are low, and it is open to anyone possessing [the amount] to share, while anyone losing it does not share(1291b39-41).  The third form is, “where all citizens of unquestioned descent share, but the law rules(1291b41-1292a1). The, the fourth form of democracy is, “where all have part in the offices provided only they are citizens, but the law rules(1292a1-4). The final form of democracy is, “the same in other respects, but the multitude has authority and not the law(1292a4) For those of us living today it is important to outline each of the different types of democracy as it is believed all should have the same type of democracy, namely a pseudo American style democracy.

However, why does Aristotle not simply stop at this? Democracy is a deviant regime that is not one of the three best regimes. As Leo Strauss states, “We must now say a few words about Aristotle’s alleged anti-democratic prejudice…The democracy of the city is characterized by the presence of slavery: citizenship was a privilege not a right.”(35). Aristotle himself begins chapter two of book six by stating the basic principles of democracy are equality (based on numbers, not merit) and freedom (1317a40-1317b13). Democracy is characterized primarily for Aristotle by these two traits; all democracies possess these two fundamental principles. For Aristotle democracy can be characterized even more by, “lack of birth, poverty and vulgarity” (1317b40-41).

Having finished his discussion of the character of democracy Aristotle goes on to discuss the equality in democracy. For Aristotle the equality and justice in democracy is in fact not equal or just. Because the majority, in democracy the poor, has authority in the democracy it is Aristotle’s belief that the majority will confiscate the riches of the minority. Thus democracy is fundamentally not entirely just or entirely equal. Aristotle states:

But concerning equality and justice, even though it is very difficult to find the truth about these matters, it is still easier to hit on it than it is to persuade those who are capable of aggrandizing themselves. The inferior always seek equality and justice; those who dominate them take not thought for it. (1318b1-5.)

Democracy is therefore not at all entirely equal and just as it proclaims to be according to Aristotle. Simply because the majority rules in democracy does not mean it is equal and just. When there is a vote there will be some left on the outside of what is decided. This is a problem with democracy as Leo Strauss points out, “democracy did not allow the claim to freedom of man as man but of freeman as freeman and in the last analysis of men who are by nature freemen.”(35.) Democracy for Aristotle was the rule of the majority, the citizens, who had the freedom to do whatever they wanted without constraints, which stands in complete contrast to the modern liberal democracy.

Yet, why does Aristotle feel the need to bring up the topic of democracy at the beginning of book six? Aristotle states, “And democracies are more stable than oligarchies and more durable on account of those of the middling sort, who are more numerous and have a greater share in the prerogatives in democracies than in oligarchies.”(1296a12-15.) The most suited for ruling according to Aristotle is the middle class, and if there is a large middle class the best form of government is democracy. Book four lends credibility to democracy as at least being superior to oligarchy in the sense of stability. There can be a parallel drawn between his argument  for democracy in a polis with a large middle class in book four and his argument for democracy in book six. At the beginning of book six chapter four Aristotle writes, “Of the four sorts of democracy, the best is the one that is first in the arrangement spoken of in the discourses preceding these; it is the oldest of them all”(1318b6-8.) The first sort of democracy spoken of is the farming democracy; the democracy where all share in rule. Aristotle then goes on to say further, “The best people is the farming sort, so that it is possible also to create [the best] democracy wherever the multitude lives from farming or herding.” (1318b9-11.) Like in book four when there is a large middle class there ought to be democracy, in book six when there is a large farming or herding multitude there ought to be democracy.

However, democracy also tends to be the form of government all others turn into. In a society of equals the tendency is toward democracy, not aristocracy or oligarchy or tyranny. Leo Strauss mentions, “It could seem that democracy is not merely one form of the [polis] among many but its normal form, or that the [polis] tends to be democratic.”(p36.)

In book three Aristotle lays out the regime in general and seems to point toward democracy as the best kind of regime unless there is one superior in virtue in which case monarchy is the best. Strauss explains this paradox, “Aristotle’s own philosophy-belongs rather to its dusk: the peak of the [polis] and the peak of philosophy belong to entirely different times.”(37.) Democracy for Aristotle works as the best regime when, “the common people is not too depraved” (37.) In book three he lays out that the rule of the many is better than the rule of the few. Thus it is in book three that Aristotle comes closest to accepting democracy before ultimately citing Aristocracy, Monarchy and Polity as the best regimes.

The question that arises next is why is it important for a person living in a modern liberal democracy to study Aristotle’s account of democracy? Leo Strauss states, “Hence modern democracy would have to be described with a view to its intention from Aristotle’s point of view as a mixture of democracy and aristocracy.”(35.) Furthermore, democracy in the Aristotelian sense meant that one could do as they wish; yet in modern democracy one is more restrictive than Aristotle’s democracy. In order to understand the modern liberal democracy one must understand Aristotle’s democracy. Our democracy is not a “true” democracy in the Aristotelian sense, but rather as Strauss says “a mixture of democracy and aristocracy” (Strauss 35.) In modern times we have almost forgotten one of the fundamental principles of democracy as laid out by Aristotle, freedom. In today’s world most “democracies” claim that their people are free but in reality are heavily restricted.

Aristotle’s account of democracy, and even oligarchy, is important in another respect as well. Harvey Mansfield says, “According to Aristotle, almost all modern, civilized regimes are democracies or oligarchies. They may be defined as the rule of the many and of the few; in fact, since it happens that the poor are many and the rich few (questionable in contemporary America), they are the rule of the poor and of the rich.”(1) It is for this reason that the study of democracy in the Aristotelian sense is also important. Because everyone is compelled to classify themselves as a democracy or a republic, we should study Aristotle so that we know the differences in regimes and are not mistaken to call a Communist nation a democracy instead of an oligarchy.

For Aristotle democracy means equality and freedom, two characteristics not found together in any other regime. In books three, four and six Aristotle makes the case that democracy should be over the other sorts. Aristotle, like we living today, believes that democracy ought to be the form of government chosen by peoples. Democracy is what the polis tends toward, because all are equal and free. Today we believe everyone should be democracy because of a similar belief, though our understanding of equality and freedom might differ than that of Aristotle. We could learn a lot from Aristotle simply because we are not all democracies in the Aristotelian sense. Further, in an age where government officials are trying to place democracy on a society with absolutely no history of the regime, using Aristotle’s arguments might make democracy more appealing throughout the world.

Published in: on April 1, 2008 at 00:57  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.