Does studying American history help in politics?

Post Reply New Topic

If we learn from Lincoln and other positive figures in American history, can we build a better government?

Only if we can clearly define our problems and from there the most plausible solutions.

We seem to be choking on that first step rather badly still.

Its always valuable to study the past to understand the present and future.

Another clever way to put it perhaps:

Political philosophy with history vs without philosophy is like the difference between science and a revelation-based faith.

If the politics sincerely want to be helped, then yes, understanding history will do some of that [/snark]. But after being alive and fully cognizant for the past 50 years, and watching American politics and social structure devolve predictably during that time, I'd have to say that a solid understanding of group dynamics, with a concentration in forensic psychology, is an even greater need.

I am not being snarky there, or in any of what follows. I say forensic for a reason. Politics has become increasingly about the empowerment of a few at the expense of the rest (ingroup vs. outgroup), whether you look at age, gender, race, or even education nowadays. The drive to amass power primarily in order to wield it over others is pathological; sorry, but it is. And as our politics go, so goes our nation.

We have designed corporate structures that, by law, are treated as quasi-humans. By law, these organizations are also literally required to behave like sociopaths. This is no coincidence: look who makes these laws. (See: The Corporation (documentary or book)). Most of our organizations are pyramidal hierarchies designed to concentrate power at the top, while driving responsibility and accountability to the lowest level possible (See: Snakes in Suits, an excellent discussion of sociopaths in hierarchies). I've seen several articles lamenting the fact that Harvey Weinstein had an entire cohort of *knowing* accomplices - protectors and enablers - this hierarchical structure, designed with no ethos in the service of power, is *why*.

And it's not just chartered corporations. Look at (sadly) the local garden/book/whatever club and its reigning bully, look at any representative eighth-grade classroom and its reigning clique, look at pseudo-advocacy organizations like Autism Speaks, for something really close to home. (Whoever they're advocating for, it isn't the people featured in their name!)

The reason this dysfunction thrives and has spread as widely as it has is that people have no understanding of it and no idea how to respond to it. If you can't describe what you are experiencing, even to yourself, you have small chance of understanding it. You'll fall back on very basic and primitive, by which I mean effectively instinctive, coping mechanisms - but they don't solve the real problem. They can't; they don't define or understand the actual problem. They just get you through the day/week/month/decade with less damage in the short run - usually by sacrificing someone else (yes, sacrificing. I did say primitive).

So yes - read history and thoroughly. But also learn about sociopathy, about group dysfunction, about how to stand up to those things. You will see that the only effective antidote to a toxic, dysfunctional group is a healthy, functional group, that deliberately stands up for a healthy, functional society - and that healthy group has to be built one person at a time on a foundation of awareness and *honesty*. It's a tall order and it works best on the micro scale, because pathological power-cravers are so damn pervasive.

A penultimate note. One of the reasons this stuff gets so fouled up is that on average, people are lousy at pattern recognition and equally lousy at sustained mental effort. And usually even more lousy at recognizing *behavioral* patterns on any scale greater than 1:1 interaction. It's not just that people "go with their gut" and keep voting the same scoundrels back in; it's that long before that vote, the process was designed in such a way that it only offers a selection of scoundrels in the first place!

We (society) pushed this back at least once before in American history - the rise of unions, flawed as they were, did more to improve the standard of living for the working class than anything before or since. Study the history of unions. And read everything by Robert Hare, and by George K. Simon, that you can find.

(Climbs down off soapbox, wondering how on earth she ended up there in the first place. Goes to make coffee, shaking head at self. Thinks about calling the local AFL-CIO and volunteering there. Edit in: speaking of which: read everything you can find by Richard Trumka and Leo Gerard.)

^
I would agree that the ills your referencing above have more to do with philosophy and critical thinking than history. I think history helps show what happens in the real world to an idea if it's walked out much in the same way that a perfectly cogent hypothesis, philosophically speaking, might pass or fail under test in a laboratory.

What you're talking about sounds like replacing a dysfunctional pyramid with a functional pyramid. Dysfunction, while it's always present at some level as you'll always have dysfunctional people, seems to be at its worst when the host society itself is dysfunctional at its higher levels. If cultural dialogue and ideas are incoherent, if anti-intellectualism is making its rounds to attack the fundamental value of ideas and the results of scientific experiments (and experts - if they indeed live up to their names) then it shows that we're having a bit of a collapse in philosophy.

What I think is happening right now is that with social media, AI coming in fast, automation hitting the work world, good enough healthcare and material provisions for women to indeed be able to work, some of this is new as of the last century and a lot of the really profound changes are new as of the past few decades. A frightening quantity of things is up in the air and people are constantly questioning what's still relevant, what's now obsolete, etc.. There are clear thinkers out there and even if we ourselves have a liberal or conservative slant we have to seek out the people who make the clearest and most level-headed cases for what we believe is going on, see how they debate others, and see what kinds of philosophies, authors, etc.. they bring up.

On something of a different note I had a fascinating experience of being pulled down a rabbit hole several years ago where I got around to reading the Hermetic b-side of antiquity, the Renaissance, European enlightenment, and Victorian age. Quite sadly or history education in schools is so heavily sanitized and triaged that we tend to get strange or even incomplete ideas as to how things came about, what people believed at different times, and how many ideas from the past (and their origins) still vividly influence us today. While I'm at least glad the internet is broadening people's horizons as to what the full catalog of human knowledge as well as philosophy and history might be it could be a while before we really have balanced history, philosophy, etc.. and the west might be a bit basket-case for a while until we're done with our big baby and bathwater purge and decide to go hunt around to see if we can find a few of the babies we discarded.

Yes, because one has to understand context. The current divisions did not come out of thin air. For example how is one to understand the statues controversy if one does not understand historical racial politics?

Absolutely. We can learn why people do what they do, and what should and shouldn't be done, by studying the country's past.

I believe so as long as it's done so comprehensively and objectively. For instance there seems to be a predilection of some to study negitive events, namely Nazi Germany, and apply that to anything they don't like or agree with.

Who are "they?"

It's not about agreeing or not, it's about content.

Take that part of a Twilight Zone episode in which a alive Hitler teach a young man how to stir a crowd, notice how the speech that come next is close in content to what Trump is saying. Saying that the US far right don't look like Nazis is missing the content while seen only the appearances. Jews or Muslims, Communists or SJW; it doesn't matter as long as scape goats are targeted and the media called liars in service of the establishment. Germany or United-States; it doesn't matter, as long as you you call intolerance patriotism.



Trump may not be willing to go as far as Hitler, but he awakened a dangerous movement and as he naturally want to quiet down any opposition he prepare the ground for very dangerous peoples.

Mostly, studying history is useless.

Most people play the role of "cog in a system".

Mostly, their ideas don't matter, their opinions don't matter, the bosses/decision-makers really don't give a crap what they think.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Nov 2017, 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

if you study the common man, sure.

which noone really does.

And yet, that notion of anti-intellectualism that doesn't see the use of studying the past is what only leads to the most horrific tragedies in history. Free government can only exist and survive with an aware populace, otherwise our freedom is doomed.