Political Philosophy

A friend of mine posted on Wednseday, at a forum we both contribute to, about the opening of the Saddam Trial. He has consistently been one of the members of the forum who have opposed the Iraq War. Over the course of our correspondence I have gotten the impression that his opposition is due more to his partisan opposition to President Bush than to a consistent ideology; and from that impression, I read a question which he posted with some skepticism. Here’s what he wrote:

My question is: What’s the point of even having a trial?

Everyone here knows there is absolutely no chance he will be released alive. His objections to the legitimacy of the trial will be overruled, and he will be found guilty and sentenced to death. There is no other outcome. Moreover, he will use the trial as a stage to embarass the United States.

So what’s the point of even having a trial? Why do we need to perpetuate the illusion of fairness when the conclusion is already predetermined?

We should skip the dog-and-pony trial and go straight to sentencing. Maybe Bush should have Saddam’s head cut off and stick it on the gate around the Whitehouse.

I think it would be fair to say that, as his post went on, his visceral opposition to President Bush took over, and the post assumed a more emotional overtone. Here was my response (which I’ve edited for easier understanding outside of the forum):

Read more

Arts & Letters linked to a Chronicle of Higher Education article by Alan Wolfe, “’The Authoritarian Personality’ Revisited.” Wolfe argues (not all that persuasively) that unfortunately, The Authoritarian Personality (by Theodor Adorno, et al) should have become a classic. It asked, “whether the United States might harbor significant numbers of people with a ‘potentially fascistic’ disposition”? Unfortunately, the fifties was not friendly to its aim “to draw a composite picture of people with authoritarian leanings.”

Actually, reading his remarks. I remembered my first day at work in Chicago; the work-study crew in the reserve library had been run ragged and I insisted they try to make the place look presentable. (Why is beyond me, now – neatness wasn’t a big thing for me even then.) Probably one of them wasn’t all that wrong when she muttered I was obviously an “authoritarian personality.” If there’s much truth to the theory, probably such a person as I was that day is most likely to display symptoms – insecure, unsure of my authority, uncomfortable with both power & responsibility. Creon exhibits these flaws; Oedipus’s are different. My feeling, however, was that in the late sixties on some campuses (certainly Chicago a good deal more than Nebraska, which was less sophisticated, less radical, and peopled by students with a different attitude toward work, authority, duty) whipping out the tag “authoritarian personality” was a convenient way to do in the other.

Read more

The Department of Homeland Security appeals to those of the Intelligent Design faith. It was created under the theory that the reason that government failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks was that it was not centralized enough. What we needed was a larger organization, with more missions and less ability to focus. As a hard-core Intelligent Design believer, [economist Brad] DeLong believes that DHS could be effective with the right administrators. To skeptics (including many of its employees), DHS is a clusterf*** no matter whom you put in charge.

–Arnold Kling

UPDATE: In the comments, Lex presents another good quote from Kling. I think it’s worthwhile to read the entire essay. Kling is consistently insightful about economics and the nexus between economic and political issues, and he writes engagingly.

Despite the fact that the petition to build a hotel on the site of Justice Souter’s home in Weare, NH, originated as a publicity stunt, it’s not taken as just a joke anymore. Beverly Wang reports:

… in a state where people fiercely protect their right to local control over land and government, many said the nuisance is Souter’s just deserts. A recent University of New Hampshire poll reported 93 percent of state residents oppose the taking of private land through eminent domain for private development.

“It’s something you really don’t want to screw with around here,” said Charles Meany, Weare’s code enforcement officer.

He thinks the hotel idea is “ludicrous” and doubts whether Clements will be able to satisfy requirements to prove the economic necessity of building a hotel on Souter’s land.

But Clements has his share of local supporters, including David Archambault, who runs a go-cart track near Souter’s home.

“What this is doing I think is wonderful, because he’s getting a point across to all these people that they’re getting too much power,” Archambault said.

Robin Ilsley, who makes syrup on a family farm about two miles from Souter’s place, thought the justice brought the controversy on himself. “It was a pretty stupid ruling,” she said.

Even her mother, who watched Souter grow up, is unsympathetic.

“I like David very much, but I don’t like his ideas,” said Winnie Ilsley, 77, who runs a doll museum at her farm. “I just don’t think it’s fair,” she said of the New London decision.

And the hotel?

“Let ’em build — but I don’t think it’s going to happen,” she said.

Sounds like a challenge to me!

(Hat-tip: Chrenkoff)

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]