For John, BLUF: The importance and the cost of Political Parties is always a topic for interesting debate. Nothing to see here; just move along.
On the Abolition of All Political Parties
Author: Simone Weil, Translator by Simon Leys
Kindle Version: 96 Pages
Publisher: NYRB Classics
Language: English
ASIN: B00JI48Y3O
Publication Date: 30 September 2014
My friend, John McDonough, producer of Local Access TV Program, City Life Show, wonders why we have political parties. He thinks those folks down on Capitol Hill should be voting, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. Further, he thinks the taxpayers should not be paying to fund partisan political primaries, which are run at the behest of the political parties. We joust about this on the City Life Show.
It is because of this ongoing discussion that I elected to read On the Abolition of All Political Parties when I saw it advertised. The fact the author was Ms Simone Weil, added to it's attractiveness.
Ms Weil sees all parties as bad, parties demanding loyalty that should be owed to the truth.
My friend, John McDonough, breaks it down into two parts:
- The big picture part is that he believes that the first duty of elected office holders is to do what is good for the United States of America. He sees parties as getting in the way. This is sort of like Senator Chuck Schumer arguing that Republicans voted for acquittal not because Messers Schiff and Nadler made a mess of the Impeachment presentation but out of party loyalty. I would think one could also make the argument the other way round. But, the point is, the vote was tainted, either way, by every Senator belonging to a party. And they do, even Senator Bernie Sanders.
-
His second point is smaller, but maybe even more important. He argues that since parties are, in essence, private clubs, like the Moose or the Elks, the taxpayers should not fund their elections, which we call primaries. We don't pay for the elections held by the Moose Lodge or the Elks. Why should we pay for elections by the Democrats or Republicans?
My response is (1) "parties" automatically form when there are differences as to the best way forward for America and (2) it is better for Government to run primaries, since they can do it more efficiently and effectively (cf. Iowa 2020)
But, back to our author, Ms Simone Weil, she bases her thesis on her reading of Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Genevan philosopher, writer and composer, who died in 1778.♠ She writes:
Rousseau took as his starting point two premises. First, reason perceives and chooses what is just and innocently useful, whereas every crime is motivated by passion. Second, reason is identical in all men, whereas their passions most often differ. From this it follows that if, on a common issue, everyone thinks alone and then expresses his opinion, and if, afterwards, all these opinions are collected and compared, most probably they will coincide inasmuch as they are just and reasonable, whereas they will differ inasmuch as they are unjust or mistaken.”
With parties we put down our hunt for truth and go with the party, thus taking up passion. In the view of Rousseau this can not be good. We have to think out the answer and come to truth. Passion will only lead us astray. In fact, it will cause us to deny truth. She cites young women supporting the Gaulist cause in World War II as arguing:
‘Truth is relative, even in geometry.’ Indeed, this is the heart of the matter. (Location 225)
The nice thing, the beautiful thing about geometry is that it is always true and there is no relativity. Yes, with trigonometry there is the trig function sine, which except for 0, 30 and 90 go out past the decimal point for large numbers or numbers. The fun thing about the ssine for 30 degrees is that it is a nice, solid 0.50 and will be, no matter how many places right of the decimal point one goes.
The problem comes in understanding truth. For Ms Weil, fighting the Third Reich, during World War II, the truth is obvious. Right is obvious. The bind comes after peace breaks out and the discussion becomes less existential, but more about how to improve the lives of others. Then there are different truths.
And example of different truths is the question of how to improve the lives of workers. Some wish to grow the pie, giving everyone more money, even if some get a lot more money. Others think it is important to more evenly divide the pie, to help the less well off, even if it means taking from those who today have a bigger slide of the pie.
The word ‘party’ is taken here in the meaning it has in Continental Europe. In Anglo-Saxon countries, this same word designates an altogether different reality, which has its roots in English tradition and is therefore not easily transposable elsewhere. The experience of a century and a half shows this clearly enough. In the Anglo-Saxon world, political parties have an element of game, of sport, which is only conceivable in an institution of aristocratic origin, whereas in institutions that were plebeian from the start, everything must always be serious. (Location 84)
Even in 2021, when the tension between parties is almost palpable, the basic Anglo-Saxon view and values remain. While we can say how things should be, that does not mean it is how they will be. We should be cautious of abolishing parties. We don't know the eventual outcome.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Per Wikipedia, His political philosophy influenced the progress of the Enlightenment throughout Europe, as well as aspects of the French Revolution and the development of modern political, economic and educational thought.
