How to Think Politically Read online

  HOW TO THINK

  POLITICALLY

  To Our Students: Past, Present and Future

  CONTENTS

  Thinker Dates

  Introduction: Politics – Might Made Right

  ANCIENTS

  1 Confucius: The Sage

  2 Plato: The Dramatist

  3 Aristotle: The Biologist

  4 Augustine: The Realist

  MEDIEVALS

  5 Al-Farabi: The Imam

  6 Maimonides: The Lawgiver

  7 Thomas Aquinas: The Harmonizer

  MODERNS

  8 Niccolò Machiavelli: The Patriot

  9 Thomas Hobbes: The Absolutist

  10 John Locke: The Puritan

  11 David Hume: The Sceptic

  12 Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Citizen

  13 Edmund Burke: The Counter-Revolutionary

  14 Mary Wollstonecraft: The Feminist

  15 Immanuel Kant: The Purist

  16 Thomas Paine: The Firebrand

  17 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Mystic

  18 James Madison: The Founder

  19 Alexis de Tocqueville: The Prophet

  20 John Stuart Mill: The Individualist

  21 Karl Marx: The Revolutionary

  22 Friedrich Nietzsche: The Psychologist

  CONTEMPORARIES

  23 Mohandas Gandhi: The Warrior

  24 Sayyid Qutb: The Jihadist

  25 Hannah Arendt: The Pariah

  26 Mao Zedong: The Chairman

  27 Friedrich Hayek: The Libertarian

  28 John Rawls: The Liberal

  29 Martha Nussbaum: The Self-Developer

  30 Arne Naess: The Mountaineer

  Conclusion: The Unhappy Marriage of Politics and Philosophy

  Suggested Further Reading

  Acknowledgements

  Index

  A Note on the Authors

  THINKER DATES

  Confucius

  551–479 BC

  Plato

  c. 428–c. 347

  Aristotle

  384–322

  Augustine

  ad 354–430

  Al-Farabi

  c. 872–c. 950

  Maimonides

  1135 or 1138–1204

  Thomas Aquinas

  1225–1274

  Niccolò Machiavelli

  1469–1527

  Thomas Hobbes

  1588–1679

  John Locke

  1632–1704

  David Hume

  1711–1776

  Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  1712–1778

  Edmund Burke

  1729–1797

  Mary Wollstonecraft

  1759–1797

  Immanuel Kant

  1724–1804

  Thomas Paine

  1737–1809

  G.W. F. Hegel

  1770–1831

  James Madison

  1751–1836

  Alexis de Tocqueville

  1805–1859

  John Stuart Mill

  1806–1873

  Karl Marx

  1818–1883

  Friedrich Nietzsche

  1844–1900

  Mohandas Gandhi

  1869–1948

  Sayyid Qutb

  1906–1966

  Hannah Arendt

  1906–1975

  Mao Zedong

  1893–1976

  Friedrich Hayek

  1899–1992

  John Rawls

  1921–2002

  Martha Nussbaum

  1947–

  Arne Naess

  1912–2009

  Introduction: Politics – Might Made Right

  It is fashionable today to describe politics as a swamp. For many it has become nothing more than a vulgar spectacle of deceit, ambition and opportunism. Trust in our political institutions and leaders has sunk to new lows, and politicians are held in greater contempt than for generations. Voter anger and disenchantment are growing at an alarming rate. Distracted by all the unseemly squabbling of politics, we end up allowing markets and bureaucrats to make decisions for us, leaving citizens resigned and alienated from politics-as-usual. It is very hard to imagine that ideas, let alone ideals, could play any part in all of this.

  But politics has always been a messy business, governed more by expediency and compromise than by lofty ideals and principles, however much lip-service is paid to the latter. It is usually a very rough and nasty game, a ‘Game of Thrones’, dominated by conflicting interests, emotions, wealth and power. Much of the time it’s just a low-down, dirty business, an ‘evil-smelling bog’, as one nineteenth-century British politician (the prime minister Lord Rosebery) called it. So shameful is political manoeuvring that it has largely been conducted behind closed doors: no decent person, it has been said, wants to observe sausages or laws being made.

  This common view of politics is partially true, but it is not the whole truth. Perhaps more than in any other arena, politics shows humans at their worst and their best. We are all too familiar now with the worst; our book reminds readers of the best in an age when it is not often apparent, but when it needs to be, given what is at stake. In what follows we will show how politics is actually a place where ideas and ideals meet concrete reality, and where great words and great deeds mix with base motives and low intrigue.

  At its best, politics can be ‘a great and civilizing human activity’, as the political theorist Bernard Crick described it in his defence of the art. It is the alternative to controlling people by force or fraud alone. Crick is right that politics can be and has been used for good and deliberate ends, and history provides abundant examples of this. It is capable of a moral nobility and an intellectual depth foreign to the present age of reality TV and government by Twitter, as you will see in what follows. Politics is the arena in which the fate of our planet will be decided. That is why, as citizens, we have a responsibility to engage with politics. To paraphrase Leon Trotsky: you may not care about politics but politics cares about you.

  We assume that citizens should be informed. But they also need to be knowledgeable and even wise. Today we are inundated with information – but knowledge and wisdom remain as scarce as ever. Thanks to the miracles of digital technology, we are drowning in oceans of data, facts and opinions. What we need now is not more information but more insight, not more data but more perspective, not more opinions but more wisdom. After all, much of what is called information is actually misinformed, and most opinions fall short of true knowledge, let alone wisdom. Even a superficial glance at the state of contemporary politics will dispel any illusion that the explosion of information has led to wiser citizens or politicians or improved the quality of public debate. If anything, misinformation is winning out over knowledge.

  How to Think Politically will help you to move beyond political information to acquire knowledge and, from there, wisdom. Information is about facts and is specific. Knowledge is more general and implies understanding and analysis. Wisdom is the highest and deepest form of insight into the reality of something. We invite you to eavesdrop upon a set of conversations among the wisest students of politics in history. In 30 short chapters you will be introduced to a diverse and fascinating cast of characters, ranging from Confucius, the wandering sage of ancient China, to Arne Naess, the modern mountaineer and ecologist, from Al-Farabi, the Muslim imam, to Hannah Arendt, the exiled German Jewish intellectual, and from Plato, the Greek philosopher, to John Rawls, the American professor.

  In this book we interweave stories from the life and times of each thinker with discussion of their key insights about politics, broadly understood. All of them attempted to distil the political information of their age
into genuine knowledge and to turn that knowledge into general wisdom about how to live well, as individuals and as communities. We have chosen 30 of the wisest and most influential political thinkers in history – from Asia, Africa, Europe and America. We conclude each chapter with reflections on the wisdom that each sage offers for today’s political challenges.

  A simple Google search will unearth an immense amount of information about the lives and ideas of these thinkers. It makes sense to start with some basic facts and opinions. But many of us crave more than that. We want to range wider and dig deeper, and to integrate all that information into a coherent and compelling understanding of politics. With over 50 years of scholarship and teaching between us, we have synthesized vast amounts of historical data and philosophical reflection into a single volume. Rather than bury you with more facts, our purpose here is to introduce you to many of the greatest political minds and ideas in history to stimulate your interest and spark your imagination.

  Politics is more than merely the clash of interests. Ideas play a decisive role in human affairs, which are never purely practical. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the founding of the United States, which was as much a battle of ideas as it was a battle of arms, as were the French and Russian Revolutions. And the recent populist revolt in the West against globalization, Islam and immigration is a struggle over identity and values no less than of power and interests. That’s why ideas and concepts have in some form been debated in every political system that has ever existed. The point where ideas meet reality is often a place of both cooperation and conflict, of idealism and cynicism, of hope and despair. It is there that philosophy can shed the most light on politics. Without such light, it really is just a darkling plain where ignorant armies clash by night.

  No concept is more frequently associated with politics than power. What else could politics be if not the arena in which power is sought, fought over and exercised? True, power is exercised in families, churches and workplaces, but supreme power is vested in governments and politics. Government itself is sometimes defined by its monopoly over the legitimate exercise of coercive power.

  If human beings were prone to agree spontaneously about our common life, there would be no need to exercise power and no need for politics. But we tend to disagree, so someone must have the power to decide when to go to war and what taxes to impose, among other things. Power politics is not only inevitable but also uniquely nasty and brutal. It is a zero-sum pursuit: whatever power is gained by one person or party or nation is lost by another. In principle, economic activity can make everyone richer; in politics not everyone can rule: there are always winners and losers.

  If politics is the struggle over power, then how does it differ from the behaviour of animals? After all, we see contests for power, domination and submission throughout the animal kingdom. Are political contests nothing more than head-butting rituals? Are political leaders merely naked apes asserting their dominance? Some political philosophers do indeed compare human politics to the power struggles of animals. According to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, however, what makes human politics unique is that we struggle not only for power but also for justice. Other animals can communicate pleasure or pain, but only human language can express the differences between good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice.

  To see the importance of both power and justice in politics, we can compare a government that has power but no legitimacy to a government that has legitimacy but no power. During the Second World War, Nazi Germany installed many governments in the defeated nations of Europe, possessing the power to control territory but lacking all legitimacy or justice. At the same time, many of the legitimate governments of occupied Europe fled to London. Each of these kinds of government is fatally flawed: power without justice is often at war with its own citizens; justice without power cannot protect the rights of citizens. Who would want to live under a government that possessed only power, or under one that possessed only justice? We all expect power to be exercised justly and justice to control power.

  So politics is the intersection of power and justice: power that is justified and justice that’s empowered. Politics is when right is made mighty and when might is exercised rightly. The activity of politics is the attempt to bring a conception of justice to power. Of what value is a justice that is unenforced or unenforceable? Of what value is power that is not guided by justice? The first is mere fantasy and the second is mere thuggery. Justice is what gives law its ‘directive force’ by telling us what is right; power is what gives law its ‘coercive force’ by adding a sanction to ensure compliance. Were human beings perfectly good, law would need only to direct us to what is right and just; but in the face of the selfish recalcitrance of human nature, legal justice must also rely upon coercive sanctions.

  The naïve idealist believes that politics is only about justice; the naïve cynic believes that politics is only about power. The great political thinkers we shall meet in this book are far from naïve in either sense; they all see politics as the intersection of justice and power, although they disagree on what justice and power are and where they should meet. Some, such as Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche and Mao, emphasize the politics of power: Augustine compares governments to organized crime, for example, while Mao claims that political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Others, such as Plato, Aquinas, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Kant, Mill, Rawls and Nussbaum, emphasize the politics of justice: Plato thinks that justice will arise only when philosophers rule, while Nussbaum argues that justice arises only when citizens are fully capable of self-rule.

  The aspiration to justice is what makes politics noble, while the struggle for power is what makes politics sordid. Lord Acton, the great nineteenth-century historian, famously cautioned that ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. He was referring here to the papacy, showing that power can destroy the character of even the best of men. We are all too familiar with the moral corruption of the powerful, from the appalling depravity of Roman emperors to the bloody terror of Nazi and communist dictators. But powerlessness also tends to corrupt: schemes of justice remote from the exigencies of power tend to become utopian, irresponsible and dangerous. French and Russian political thinkers before their famous revolutions were totally powerless; as a consequence, they devised ambitious plans for the elimination of marriage, social classes, religion, property, money and the calendar. Sound political thinking depends upon a clear-sighted understanding of the demands of both justice and power. So long as citizens continue to demand that power be justified, that might be made right, we shall need political philosophers to help us understand what justice requires.

  How did the great political thinkers relate to the politics of their own day? As we shall see, a few of them were pure theoreticians, remote from the exercise of power – Al-Farabi, Wollstonecraft, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Arendt, Hayek and Rawls; they were either too radical or too professorial to participate directly in politics. And a few actually held political office: Machiavelli and Hume were diplomats; Burke, Tocqueville and Mill were legislators; and Madison and Mao were founders and heads of modern states. But most political philosophers were neither pure theoreticians nor actual politicians but advisers who attempted to influence the political leaders of their day. Confucius, for example, offered sage counsel to several local Chinese rulers, only to be ignored and exiled. Plato risked his life journeying to Sicily in the empty hope of shaping a local tyrant, while Aristotle gave advice to his former student Alexander the Great, who ignored it completely. Thomas Paine played a prominent role mobilizing the masses in not one but two major revolutions. In other words, most political philosophers have sought to influence the rulers of their day. But, crucially, the 30 thinkers we have chosen here did more than just that. They all wrote works that raised issues, posed questions and offered ideas about politics that transcended their immediate circumstances. As a result, they have much to say to us now. We would do well
to listen to them.

  History, it has been said, never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme. If we had written this book one hundred years ago, we would probably not have included several key ancient thinkers, such as Confucius, Al-Farabi and Maimonides. By the early twentieth century, history seemed to have left Confucian, Islamic and Jewish political thought behind. But, astonishingly, we have recently witnessed the revival of Confucianism in post-Mao China, the explosion of Islamic political theory across the globe and the emergence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Today, nothing is more relevant than these once nearly forgotten thinkers. As William Faulkner reminded us: ‘The past is not dead; it is not even past.’ As for the future, we have chosen Arne Naess to be our final thinker, varying the chronology just a bit. His reflections upon humankind’s relation to nature will only become more important over time.

  Politics, as a way to manage human societies by means of argument rather than by mere force, arose relatively recently in human history and may well disappear in the future. As consumers replace citizens and as bureaucrats replace statesmen, human societies may well be governed in the future by some combination of markets and regulators. In many ways, of course, a market economy governed by technocrats would be tidier and more efficient than messy, contentious and uncertain government by politics. Consumers will be happier and government more predictable. To gauge what might be lost in such a world, you would do well to begin your journey by turning the page.