Shall We Talk About Politics?

Has the level of political discussion declined of late? Yeah, rhetorical question. Thoughtful disagreements on the political issues of the day seem to be forbidden by some unwritten rule. The causes for this state of affairs are undoubtedly overdetermined, but perhaps the root problem is that people no longer read Aristotle.

Consider the question he raises in Book 3. Is the good man the same thing as the good citizen? That question can be framed in many interesting ways. Is being morally good necessary to being a good citizen? Is being morally good sufficient for being a good citizen? Is being a good citizen necessary or sufficient for being a morally good person?

Now right away, you are objecting that this question begs the questions of what makes someone a morally good person and what makes someone a good citizen. Exactly so. Aristotle address the first in Nichomachean Ethics, but we don’t need his definition here. Use whatever moral code you have for yourself. What is the relationship between that moral good and being a good citizen?

Ah, but what does it mean to be a good citizen? Answering that question requires a taxonomy of forms of government. For some types of government, being morally good may be antithetical to being a good citizen; for others, they may align. But, even in governments where being morally good aligns with being a good citizen, it is only people involved in governing for whom this matters. If you are not involved in governing at all, you can be a perfectly good citizen and a morally corrupt person.

The next question: what type of government should we have? If we want a good state with good citizens and good people making decisions, what type of government is best? That takes a bit more time to examine, but it becomes clear once Aristotle asks whether it is better to be ruled by good laws or good people. The latter is unambiguously better; good laws are nice and all, but they cannot account for every contingency. Good people making decisions can adapt to changing circumstances, ensuring that good laws are applied in a good way.

So, the best form of government possible is a kingship in which the king is the person “surpassing all others in goodness.” This good and benevolent dictator, excelling all others in moral goodness, will make for a most outstanding kingdom. If you want a great government, put the perfect person in charge and then go about your daily life.

Easy, right? Well, that only works as long as your ruler is a person of exceptionally high moral quality. If you end up with a bad king, then you get tyranny. Tyranny is one of the worst forms of government. So, unless you live in a world in which everyone is good or unless you have found a king-selection process to ensure only good kings, then maybe this single ruler thing isn’t such a great idea.

Should we then have a democracy and allow everyone to rule collectively? Again, this is marvelous if the society is populated by morally good people. If it isn’t, then you get mob rule. The passions of the moment rip through the populace; cooler heads do not prevail. Demagogues arise. The majority imposes its will on the minority, which sounds great unless you are in the minority.

The American Founding Fathers knew this; hence the US Constitution. It is a document for a world of imperfect people in which there are many checks and balances allowing, as Publius put it, ambition to check ambition. In this way, the Founding Fathers hoped that while we cannot generate good rulers at least we could get good laws.

But, Aristotle is one step ahead even here.

The greatest, however, of all the means we have mentioned for ensuring the stability of constitutions—but one which is nowadays generally neglected—is the education of citizens in the spirit of their constitution. There is no advantage in the best of laws, even when there are sanctioned by general civic consent, if the citizens themselves have not been attuned, by the force of habit and the influence of teaching, to the right constitutional temper…

What happens when the population no longer agrees with the spirit of the constitution? What happens when a generation rises up which is not attuned with the right constitutional temper? What happens when the people decide that the constitution gets in the way of doing what the people want to do? We would have a problem.

Imagine a society in which there are many people who no longer agree on fundamental principles, all of whom are vying for power. When one party gets control of the levers of power, there is no compulsion to compromise. Might makes right. The competition for power will resemble a civil war, because that is in fact what it is. Your side is Right; the other side is Evil. You do not compromise with Evil; it must be destroyed.

Sound familiar? Aristotle wrote about this state of affairs

Both sides are based on a sort of justice; but they both fall short of absolute justice. For this reason each side engages in factional conflict if it does not enjoy a share in the constitution in keeping with the conception of justice it happens to entertain. Those who are pre-eminent in merit would be the most justified in forming factions (though they are the last to make the attempt); for they, and they only can reasonably be regarded as enjoying an absolute superiority. [emphasis added]

Aristotle wrote that 2400 years ago. Perhaps the solution to our present problems is simply this: maybe, just maybe, if we all paused, took a deep breath, and read through Politics to remind ourselves of fundamental things, we could see our way past the present factional conflicts. After all, the end result of the present course is a choice. Would you prefer tyranny or mob rule?