Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote
At 09:38 PM 1/14/00 -0600, John K. Taber wrote:
>>Folks, we elect politicians, not saints, to represent us. If we
>>wanted saints, we would need an entirely different kind of
>>society.
>
>>From the list of offences, and there is no reason to assume
>>it is a valid list, I say that our representatives represent
>>us pretty well.
>
>John, this is a very simplistic view of the polity, I am afraid. It is
>based on a mentalist view, or a fallacy as I would like to believe,
that
>people act according to their moral character, ideology, values, etc.
that
>reamin relatively stable over the course of life. Hence the popular
myth
>that if "we" just elect people with the "right" moral character and a
set
>of values, everything will be just fine.
The antecedent of "this" isn't clear, so I'm not sure if you mean my view or that of the internet fable now making the rounds that I was objecting to.
But whatever, I think we are agreeing.
>If you look at things from an interactionist view point, i.e. if you
view
>consciousness (moral character, values, beliefs, ideologies) as a
product
>of social interaction (i.e. material living conditions, class position
and
>social roles it stipulates, the organization of society, etc.), and
values
>ideologies etc. as ex-post facto-rationalizations of the past decisions
and
>behaviour - the personalities, ideologies, values etc. of the people we
>elect do not really matter. Electing a "virtuous" politician becomes
like
>buying a "green" chameleon - the politician's colors are likely to
change
>in his/her new environment.
>From that point of view, elections as we have them are pretty
meaningless,
>except perhaps as being a participatory ritual that gives people a
feeling
>that they symbolically "control" the polity. The real issue is to
control
>the behavior of elected representatives *after* they take their
offices,
>not before it. Therefore, only a system of government that has
instituted
>a relateviely easy way of censuring and recalling officials if they do
not
>perform to their constituents' expectations can be considered truly
>democratic. Without the real possibility of constituents withdrawing
their
>mandate and punishing politicians (who are after all public
*employees*)
>for not performing as directed there is no democracy. Thus, the US
with
>all its electoral hoopla is not that much different from the x-USSR in
that
>respect - in both cases the decision-makers were appointed under the
>nomenklatura system, and then the names given to the public for a
>ritualistic approval, but the public had very limited means of
controling
>politicians' behavior after their ritualistic confirmation in the
office .
Just an addendum to your comment on elections as participatory ritual. I think they also provide mystical legitimization, which I call "Taber's Chicken Liver Theory of Democracy." In the days of the Roman Republic, the gods had veto power over human legislation. So, bird entrails were studied to determine the wishes of the gods. If the gods approved, surely the ruled could not object. In other words, the gods legitimized for the public those decisions made in private.
Divining bird entrails was a very important political office. Naturally, Roman leaders found ways to make sure the gods agreed with decided policy. Scipio Africanus went through 32 birds before his priests found one that said giving battle to the Carthaginians was approved by the gods.
Pontifex Maximus (head priest) was Caesar's first important office. The College of Priests had charge of divining bird entrails, and thus an effective veto. I read that he went so far into debt that on the eve of the election he told his mother he would have to kill himself if he lost.
I think there is a lot to be said about ritual legitimization. It is mystical. There is no reason to think that bird entrails, or popular election, or the divine right of the king, makes a public decision, which is usually a private decision, ok. Yet people accept it, until one day, they suddenly decide the ritual is invalid.
-- Another damn, thick, square book. Always scribbling, scribbling, scribbling, eh, Mr. Gibbon? -- Duke of Gloucester.