Tuesday, August 1, 2017

#MAGA? JUST WHEN WAS THAT?





From: Hannah Arendt Center <arendt@bard.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 9:31 AM
To: bigredjbird@hotmail.com
Subject: Amor Mundi Newsletter: Against Sovereignty
 

Click through the event banner for more information on our schedule, speakers, and about how to register for our 10th annual fall conference
coming this October 12-13th.




 

July 16th, 2017
ARTICLE SPOTLIGHT


"My colleagues were generally sympathetic to an explanation that I think a lot of people endorse, but that is fundamentally misleading: 
The people are frustrated that they've lost democratic control of their lives and their economies.

In this post I'll argue that that's wrong, not as a description of voters' psychologies, but as an implied history. They never had such control; it's not available, and never was. This matters a great deal for understanding what choices lie ahead. There is no option of restoring what this explanation implies sovereign democratic states used to have. Holding out the promise of it invites perpetual frustration, exploitable by opportunistic demagogues. I don't have any simple recipe for either getting us out of the current upsurge of populist nationalism, or for forestalling its return in the future. (Yes, I still think it's current, notwithstanding recent European elections - a topic for another day.) But the answer is not to hold out the prospect of a return to a sovereign control over the world by democratic electorates.

The imagined Golden Age in these kinds of stories of the fall from democratic grace is the postwar era; it's often referred to as les trente glorieusesthe thirty glorious years of high economic growth, broadly distributed, during which most Western market democracies built substantial welfare and regulative states after World War II. The chronology varies from one country to another, but roughly speaking the Golden Age is taken to have ended sometime around 1970-75, opening political space for a very different political-economic model to take hold - with the election of Thatcher and Reagan, and the reconciliation of Mitterrand's Socialist government in France to the market. Mitterrand's turn toward monetary and fiscal restraint looms large in this history; the international economic environment (particularly the partly fixed-exchange European Monetary System) meant that he couldn't follow through on his ideological commitments and aspirations. Over the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s, the international financial institutions (the World Bank, the IMF) then supposedly imposed "neoliberalism" on much of the developing world - and, after 1989, on eastern and central Europe as well. Neoliberalism in this sense - there are far too many senses - includes fiscal austerity, privatization, free capital movement, and free trade."

Levy believes that the very idea of democratic control over our political lives is a myth.

"[T]he growth, stability, and expansion of powerful states governed by representative democracy was in part a creation of the credit market, bondholders, and international finance. That's not a world in which democratic decision makers ever had unconstrained sovereign decision-making authority over public finance, even in the powerful core states of the international system."
 
What Levy calls the "golden age" is a worldwide phenomena that he attributes not to political democracy but to economic comfort. No doubt he is right, at least in part.
 
And yet it is also true that in some places and at some times local political control meant more than simply economic growth. What Hannah Arendt called the "lost treasure" of the American Revolution was the practice and experience of political freedom, the experience of self-government, the belief and the actuality of making decisions over economic destiny. That treasure was lost, Arendt believes, by the mid-twentieth century. And Levy, looking at the mid-twentieth century, sees this lost sense of control as a myth:

"But I mean to also emphasize that even the things that states do govern about their economies, they have never sovereignly controlled. The public budget, the tax system, public debt, monetary and exchange policy: these have always been constrained by international actors. Indeed, the finance provided by the international actors has often been a precondition for the states' ability to decide these matters at all. Once we look at things through that lens, the trentes glorieuses narrative falls apart."
 
For Arendt, the dream of freedom was not to be found through the discovery of a sovereign democratic entity. She saw sovereignty itself as the enemy of freedom and understood that the great insight of the American Constitution was that sovereignty and tyranny were the same. Instead of the kind of democratic sovereignty that Levy attributes to the golden age, Arendt held out the hope for a dispersal of local and federated powers. She understood that the path to freedom was through neither democratic nor autocratic sovereignty, but through the constitutional and institutional creation of multiple power centers that would simultaneously allow for the power of collective self-government and the prevention of sovereign rule.

-Roger Berkowitz 

ARTICLE SPOTLIGHT
The Partisanship of Higher Education


"Over the past two years, the share of Republicans and Republican leaners who view the impact of colleges and universities positively has declined 18 percentage points (from 54% to 36%), and this shift in opinion has occurred across most demographic and ideological groups within the GOP.

Younger Republicans continue to express more positive views of colleges than do older Republicans. But the share of Republicans under 50 who view colleges positively has fallen 21 points since 2015 (from 65% to 44%), while declining 15 points among those 50 and older (43% to 28%).

Since 2015, positive views of colleges and universities have fallen 11 points among Republicans with a college degree or more education (from 44% to 33%) and 20 points among those who do not have a college degree (57% to 37%). There also have been double-digit declines in the share of conservative Republicans (from 48% to 29%) and moderate and liberal Republicans (from 62% to 50%) who say colleges have a positive effect on the country.

A closer look at Republican and Democratic views on the impact of colleges and universities reveals different demographic patterns within the two party coalitions.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, younger adults have much more positive views of colleges and universities than older adults. About half (52%) of Republicans ages 18 to 29 say colleges and universities have a positive impact on the country, compared with just 27% of those 65 and older. By contrast, there are no significant differences in views among Democrats by age, with comparable majorities of all age groups saying colleges and universities have a positive impact.

Views of the impact of colleges and universities differ little among Republicans, regardless of their level of educational attainment. Democrats with higher levels of education are somewhat more positive than are those with less education, but large majorities across all groups view the impact of colleges positively."
ARTICLE SPOTLIGHT

 
"Last Sunday, in what appears to be a reactionary Tweet, Bill Kristol threw his hat in with the worst of the Internet's conspiracy theorists. Kristol who has been smartly criticizing President Trump and the media's coverage of Trump's presidency sent out a surprising Tweet in the style of Trump. It was short, doltish, and revealed a lack of veracity. Kristol, retweeting Jonah Goldberg, wrote: #Never Trump., #NeverFrankfurtSchool. It's not clear from Mr. Goldberg's writings that he has any real knowledge of the Frankfurt School, but that is another matter. What's more disconcerting is that it's not clear from Kristol's retweet and hash tags that he knows much about what he's agreeing with or saying either. And this is what reporting and the news have come to, and why our level of dialogue continues to decline. People say things that aren't true to elicit attention, and then other people share what they've said without stopping and thinking about what they're sharing."

ARTICLE SPOTLIGHT
Erik Hinton believes, now that we've turned to Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin to understand our own time, we should turn (in turn) to Gershom Scholem:

"A scholar of esoteric Jewish experience who rarely divulged his personal religious and political philosophy, Scholem resists the immediate, quotable relevance enjoyed by his contemporaries. His work features ecstatic stories of men who believed they were the Messiah, and incoherent descriptions of God's celestial chariot-of limited use to political dissidents, war victims, and alienated workers. When the jackboots of authoritarianism are kicking in doors, Scholem's apocalyptic religiosity can seem cloying. Why should we need to hallucinate the end of days? It's here. 

But Scholem wrote from a similar vantage. An adolescent and budding anarchist in Germany during World War I, he found himself trapped between a zealous nationalism and a bourgeois Jewish community that did nothing to prevent the bloodshed. Even the supposedly revolutionary Zionist movement, which enchanted Scholem, proved to be a disappointment when Martin Buber, one of its most influential intellectuals, endorsed the war. Later, after Scholem had moved to Jerusalem on a spiritual quest to deepen his engagement with Jewish literature and tradition, still trying to salvage redemptive threads of the cultural Zionist project, he again encountered devastation. The idealized return to the holy land engulfed Palestine in violence, culminating in the 1929 riots that claimed hundreds of Jewish and Arab lives. "Zionism has triumphed itself to death," Scholem wrote in a 1931 letter to Walter Benjamin. "Now it is no longer a matter of saving us ... but of jumping into the abyss that yawns between victory and reality." A decade later, he witnessed the unimaginable tragedy of World War II and the Holocaust, which took the life of his close friend, Walter Benjamin, murdered his brother Werner, and annihilated much of European Jewry.

Scholem reacted to these waves of devastation by turning to the study of mystical movements in Jewish history. Working in Jerusalem at the National Library and, eventually, as a professor of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University, he revitalized interest in Kabbalah, an esoteric tradition within Judaism. Dating back to the Talmudic era and thoroughly multifarious, Kabbalah is a mystical complement to Jewish religious life, driven by linguistic and metaphysical speculation. Rather than relegate the ecstatic and obscure threads of Kabbalah to a para-religious curiosity, Scholem detailed the evolution of Judaism as one that braided its mainline and mystical elements. In perhaps the best introduction to Scholem's thought, his "Religious Authority and Mysticism," he writes, "All mysticism has two contradictory or complementary aspects: the one conservative, the other revolutionary." In his story of Judaism, the conservative tenets of the religion are tempered, subverted, and reinvented by mystical influences: blind sages meditating on the divine qualities of Hebrew letters, secretive rabbis forging mammoth tomes of speculative philosophy, and charismatic cult leaders claiming that they were the messiah. For Scholem, the history of Jewish mysticism held tradition open to innovation. He imagined a politics and ethics vitalized by an anarchistic spirit."

ARTICLE SPOTLIGHT

"I couldn't help but think of Tan these past few days as China's best-known democracy activist, Liu Xiaobo, lay dying of liver cancer in a hospital prison. Death comes to all people and cancer is not the same as an executioner's sword. But the deaths of the two seemed somehow to connect across the hundred and nineteen years that separate their fates. Like Tan, Liu threw his weight behind a cause that in its immediate aftermath seemed hopeless-in Liu's case, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. But with time, history vindicated Tan; I wonder if it will do the same for Liu.

When the Tiananmen protests erupted, Liu was abroad but chose to return. After the protesters were bloodily suppressed, many of the Tiananmen leaders who could left the country; Liu, too, after a brief stint in prison, had opportunities to leave. But like Tan Sitong, he chose to stay in China, where he mattered most. Even after a second, harsher stint in jail, Liu was determined to remain and keep pushing for basic political rights. He was risking not the immediate arrival of soldiers, but the inevitable and life-threatening imprisonment that befalls all people who challenge state power in China today.

This was not an active decision to die, but a willingness to do so."

Last September, Johnston wrote of how Liu's various periods of imprisonment had affected his wife, Liu Xia, also a poet and activist:

"Every month, the Chinese poet, photographer, and artist Liu Xia boards a train bound for the country's north...The ride used to take six hours each way but Ms. Liu now makes it in just three-a tribute to the power and might of a state that rolls out high-speed rail lines as quickly as it snaps up those who oppose its vision of China's future. Now fifty-five years old, Ms. Liu is one of those victims: a small, fragile woman with extremely short-cropped hair that sets off her high cheek bones and bright, wide eyes.

She has lived under strict police surveillance ever since her husband won his prize in 2010, one year into his eleven-year prison term. For more than three years, she could not see friends or even receive phone calls. Those close to her spoke of her becoming unbalanced from the pressure. When Associated Press journalists snuck past guards and knocked on her door in 2012, she trembled, cried, and said her situation was "Kafkaesque." In 2014, people close to her reported that she was hospitalized due to heart ailments and depression."

Johnson's passages on the Liu's remind me of Arendt's thinking about courage in my favorite of her essays, "What Is Freedom," where she says that "freedom or its opposite appears in the world whenever... principles are actualized; the appearance of freedom, like the manifestation of principles, coincides with the performing act. Men are free-as distinguished from their possessing the gift of for freedom- as long as they act, neither before nor after; for to be free and to act are the same." Arendt, countering the notion that freedom is an apolitical matter of the will, suggests that the key to freedom actually lies within the ability to take stock of situations as they arise and take the proper and virtuous actions in response to them. She compares the ability to do so to virtuosity, as in the arts, and she declares also that action is characterized by risk to one's life, to one's comfort, to one's economic stability; actors able to overcome that risk, she says, make visible one of her "cardinal political virtues." "Courage" she says "liberates men from their worry about life for the freedom of the world. Courage is indispensable because in politics not life but the world is at stake."

-JK

 
EVENTS
View all of our upcoming events at http://hac.bard.edu/events

JULY 21st, 2017 - 1:00 - 2:30pm EDT (UTC-4)
Our Virtual Reading Group Continues with "Truth and Politics"

On Friday, July 21st, our Virtual Reading Group will continue its exploration of Arendt's writings with a discussion of her 1961 book, Between Past and Future and the essay, "Truth and Politics."

Sticking with our recent meeting format, a video introduction to the text will be offered prior to our meeting, and we will come together at 1:00pm to discuss this important essay.

Participation is free for members and Bard students.

Not a member? Consider joining us for free access to our reading group and many of our event offerings throughout the year, including our fall conference, Crises of Democracy.



SAVE THE DATE! OCT 12 - 13, 2017 - 10th ANNUAL FALL CONFERENCE
Crises of Democracy: Thinking in Dark Times




  

The dangers of democracy are well known. Plato understood that democracies were driven to excessive equality, the loss of standards, and corruption, all of which made democracies susceptible to demagogues and tyrants. Tocqueville warned that democracy without limits threatened a tyranny of the majority. In the face of these dangers, there are those who argue it is time to shed or radically limit democracy.

The two-day conference will seek to answer the following questions:
  • Is there presently a crisis of democracy?
  • Are we witnessing the rise of authoritarian or fascist governments?
  • Does the rule by experts and bureaucrats threaten democracy?
  • How does the centralization of power contribute to the crisis of democracy?
  • Does identity politics threaten or enable pluralist democracy?
  • Should we require tests or education levels for voting?
  • Does the information explosion render obsolete the authority of democratic institutions?
Above all, we ask, how can we restore vigor and meaning to democracy?

For more information on our speakers, schedule, event location, recommended reading, and annual debate, our conference event page is here to help!

About Amor Mundi

 

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. "What is most difficult," Arendt writes, "is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it." And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

 

Until next time,
The Hannah Arendt Center

Hannah Arendt Center, P.O. Box 5000, Annandale, NY 12504

No comments:

Post a Comment

Speak up!