Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

Here are some of my favorite quotes relevant to political philosophy, ethics, and related matters. I will add more later. Please feel free to post your own favorites in this thread.


“What I do not know, I do not think I know.”

― Socrates, as quoted in Plato, Apology of Socrates, 21d.


“It is always more easy to discover and proclaim general principles than to apply them.”

― Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War; Vol. 1: The Gathering Storm (New York: Bantam Books, 1948), 188.


"Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence."

- Abraham Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions," Address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (New York: Library of America, 1989), 36.

"Worthy friends[,] that ourselves & all Men are apt & prone to differ it is no New Thing[,] in all former Ages[,] in all parts of this World[,] in these parts[,] and in our deare native Countrey & mournfull state of England[.]

"That either part or partie is most right in his owne eyes[,] his Cause Right[,] his Cariage Right, his Arguments Right[,] his Answeres Right is as wofully & constantly true as the former. And experience tells us that when the God of peace hath taken peace from the Earth[,] one sparke of Action[,] Word[,] or Cariage is too too powrefull to kindle such a fire as burnes up Families[,] Townes[,] Cities[,] Armies, Navies[,] Nations[,] & Kingdomes."

Roger Williams, "An humble Motion to the Towne of Providence," August 31, 1648, in The Early Records of the Town of Providence, ed. Horatio Rogers et al., 22 vols. (Providence, 1892-1949), 15:17; photographic facsimile of original at ibid., between 38-39.

"In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce."

- James Madison, speech in the Constitutional Convention, June 26, 1787, in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press), 1966), 1:422.

"Oh let not this bold cry offend, and though offend, yet let it throughly awake your noble spirits to know your dangers & hindrances (more then other mens) from a world of distractions from without, from pride & self-confidence from within, from the flatteries of such who (hoping for rewards & morsels from you) proclaim abroad (that you may hear it) O blessed Christian Magistrates, Christian Kings & Queens, Christian States, Christian Parliaments, Christian Armies, so lulling your pretious souls into an eternall sleep."

- Roger Williams, "To the Most Honorable The Parliament of the Common-wealth of England," in Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenent Yet More Bloody . . . (London, 1652), unpaged, reprinted in The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, ed. Reuben Albridge Guild et al., 7 vols. (1963; repr., Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2005), 4:15.

"[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse, as at this day."

- Roger Williams, Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered, 45 (London, 1644), reprinted in The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 1:108.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791.


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

- Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, in Daniel L. Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State (New York: New York University Press, 2002), Kindle ed., app. 6, loc. 2919-23 (quoting exactly from the original manuscript and correcting a common misquotation; I do not agree with Dreisbach's historical interpretation, but he properly quoted this original manuscript).


"[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. . . . Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

- Letter of James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, in James Madison: Writings, ed. Jack N. Rakove (New York: Library of America, 1999), 788-89.

"On the coming of evening, I return to my house and enter my study; and at the door I take off the day's clothing, covered with mud and dust, and put on garments regal and courtly; and reclothed appropriately, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men, where, received by them with affection, I feed on that food which only is mine and which I was born for, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them the reason for their actions; and they in their kindness answer me; and for four hours of time I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not dread poverty, I am not frightened by death; entirely I give myself over to them."

- Letter of Niccolo Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori, December 10, 1513, in The Letters of Machiavelli: A Selection of His Letters, trans. and ed. Allan Gilbert (New York: Capricorn Books, 1961), 142.

Alan wrote: ""On the coming of evening, I return to my house and enter my study; and at the door I take off the day's clothing, covered with mud and dust, and put on garments regal and courtly; and reclothed ap..."

I have loved this famous quote since first reading it back in the sixties in a wonderful Oxford University volume, The Literary Works of Machiavelli. This volume also has Machiavelli's plays, including the hilarious Mandragola. Now in my own retirement from affairs of the formal economy (if not the state), it rings even truer!

Another quote from the letters to Vettori, which is more in line with his "Machiavellian" character, is the following: "I beg you; follow your star, and don't budge an iota for anything in the world, for I believe, used to believe and will always believe that what Boccaccio says is true; that it is better to act and repent, than do nothing, and repent." As a Sceptic I can't assent to his dogmatism of "belief," but neither can I but marvel at the brilliance of this incendiary character.

Randal, you and I have an amazingly similar intellectual background. I too read that book (including Mandragola), as well as the book I cited, during the 1960s. In fact, I wrote a paper on Machiavelli's letters and plays at that time. I remember your quote and probably used it in my paper (which is stored away somewhere in a box in my basement). Although I have issues with Machiavelli's formal philosophical views, his insights and literary talent are delightful to read.

Although Americans are sometimes ignorant of basic science (which ignorance has a deleterious effect in their thinking about important political issues), it is also true that Americans generally believe that politics and ethics are all a matter of opinion rather than reason and knowledge. During his lifetime (1689-1755), when modern science was still in its infancy (and often mixed in with superstition), Montesquieu addressed a similar problem in the following private note to himself:

"Among the Greeks and Romans, admiration for the political and moral sciences was raised to a kind of cult. Today, we have esteem only for the natural sciences; we are occupied solely with them, and political good and bad are for us an opinion rather than an object of knowledge.

"Thus, not being born in the age I should have been, I have resolved to make myself a partisan of the sect of that excellent man the abbé de Saint-Pierre, who has written so much these days about Politics—and to persuade myself that seven or eight hundred years from now, there will arrive a certain people for whom my ideas will be very useful; and in the tiny portion of that time that I have to live, to engage, for my own use, in an ongoing employment of my modesty."

Montesquieu, My Thoughts, trans., ed., and with an introduction by Henry C. Clark (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 581 (pensée 1940).

"[I]t's necessary to exert very great foresight every time you go to blame or praise a man, so that you won't speak incorrectly. . . . For you shouldn't suppose that, while stones are sacred and pieces of wood, and birds, and snakes, human beings are not. Rather of all these things, the most sacred is the good human being, while the most polluted is the wicked."

Speech attributed to Socrates in Plato, Minos 319a, trans. Thomas L. Pangle, in The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 63.

"For myself, I would rather not write history than write it for the purpose of following the prejudices and passions of the times.

"Here, someone makes the Capetians descend from the Merovingians; there, someone else has it that the name very Christian has always been applied to the {French} princes.

"They don't form a system after reading history; they begin with the system and then search for the proofs."

Montesquieu, My Thoughts, trans., ed., and with an introduction by Henry C. Clark (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 71 (pensée 190).

"A person of my acquaintance said: . . .

'Study has always been for me the sovereign remedy against life's unpleasantness, since I have never experienced any sorrow that an hour's reading did not eliminate.'"

Montesquieu, My Thoughts, trans., ed., and with an introduction by Henry C. Clark (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 84 (pensée 213).

"Athenian Stranger: 'It seems to me that all those who take up a practice for discussion and propose to blame or praise it as soon as it's mentioned proceed in a manner that is not at all proper.'" Plato Laws 638c, in The Laws of Plato, trans. and ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1980), 17.

"Scholars may contribute their knowledge or insight to public debate on important issues. They may contribute it in a form that is understandable to a policymaker, or even to the public, consistently with their duty of rigorous intellectual honesty. Scholars should not feel constrained to publish only turgid prose in obscure journals. They should not leave the public debate to those who feel no scruples whatever to conform their claims to the evidence."

Douglas Laycock, Religious Liberty, vol. 1, Overviews and History Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 534.

“You ask a philosopher a question and after he or she has talked for a bit, you don’t understand your question any more.” --Philippa Foot

This quote was posted on Goodreads by someone else. I don't know the bibliographic source of it. Perhaps I'll run across it as I read Philippa Foot's writings.

“The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. . . .”

--Bertrand Russell, from The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1912).

It’s tempting to post a few more:

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” --Hannah Arendt

“The minds of different generations are as impenetrable one by the other as are the monads of Leibniz.” --André Maurois

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” --Jonathan Swift

“Perhaps too much is said in universities about how ‘exciting’ it is to think. Thinking undoubtedly has its excitements and satisfactions, but these feelings do not disclose its general character, and there is something very much wrong with the idea they should. We do not think in order to have fun but because life is troubling and problematic. We think because we are compelled to. And while thinking occasionally brings exciting discoveries, the periods in between these discoveries are likely to place heavy demands not only on the thinker’s energies but on his patience as well. When thinking, we should not need to tell ourselves that it is an exhilarating experience; it should be enough to realize that we are behaving with the seriousness, the rationality, and the self-discipline that the human situation requires of us.”

Tinder, Glenn. Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1974.

"And let me make the radical statement that I don’t believe that you can say something profound in the 140 characters that make up a tweet."

Bernie Sanders, Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2016), 98.

"The light obtained by setting straw men on fire is not what we mean by illumination."

Adam Gopnik, "The Illiberal Imagination: Are Liberals on the Wrong Side of History?", The New Yorker, March 20, 2017, p. 92.

"It is not self-forgetting and pain-loving antiquarianism nor self-forgetting and intoxicating romanticism which induces us to turn with passionate interest, with unqualified willingness to learn, toward the political thought of classical antiquity. We are impelled to do so by the crisis of our time, the crisis of the West."

Leo Strauss, The City and Man (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), 1.

I return to these very frequently:

"A difference that makes no difference, is no difference at all."

—William James, 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'

"Our main business... is not to 'see' what lies dimly at a distance, but to 'do' what lies clearly at hand."

—Thomas Carlyle

"Plato founded a school called the Academy. This school became, a few generations after Plato, the New Academy, a skeptical school. Whereas traditional Platonism was one of the most dogmatic schools, Plato gave rise to a most skeptical school as well, and this can be explained by the fact that while Plato himself was neither a dogmatist nor a skeptic, his successors were unable to remain on this level. There is a remarkable sentence of Pascal according to which we know too little to be dogmatists and too much to be skeptics, which expresses beautifully what Plato conveys through his dialogues."

Leo Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, ed. Seth Benardete (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 4.

In his introductory remarks to his course on the Symposium, Leo Strauss remarked on the ad populum fallacy:

"[T]hough in all practical matters it is indispensable, either always or mostly, to follow custom, to do what is generally done, in theoretical matters it is simply untrue. In practical matters there is a right of the first occupant: what is established must be respected. In theoretical matters this cannot be. Differently stated: The rule of practice is 'let sleeping dogs lie,' do not disturb the established. In theoretical matters the rule is 'do not let sleeping dogs lie.' Therefore, we cannot defer to precedent . . . ."

Leo Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, ed. Seth Benardete (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 1.

The ad populum fallacy is also discussed in the Plato (427-347 BCE) topic at posts 165-202 passim.

Ad populum is echoed in another wonderful film (a few years after 'Apes').
The story of the Starkweather-Fugate murder spree, 'Badlands'. Quite a film for fans of ethics, as well.

As the two teens go on their rampage, (11 people slain in Nebraska/Wyoming) they stop in a dime store to record a wax of their voices... 'for posterity'. One of them ruminates with the intonation of a modern-day Abe Lincoln:

"Listen to your parents and teachers. They got a line on most things, so don't treat em like enemies. There's always an outside chance you can learn something. Try to keep an open mind. Try to understand the viewpoints of others. Consider the minority opinion. But ...try to get along with the majority of opinion once it's accepted. Of course, Holly and I have had fun, even if it has been rushed. And uh, so far a good sign, hadn't got caught. Excuse the grammar."

Feliks wrote: "Ad populum is echoed in another wonderful film (a few years after 'Apes').
The story of the Starkweather-Fugate murder spree, 'Badlands'. Quite a film for fans of ethics, as well.

As the two teens..."

Bizarre.

"Philosophy as such is nothing but genuine awareness of the problems, i.e., of the fundamental and comprehensive problems. It is impossible to think about these problems without becoming inclined toward a solution, toward one or the other of the very few typical solutions. Yet as long as there is no wisdom but only quest for wisdom, the evidence of all solutions is necessarily smaller than the evidence of the problems. Therefore the philosopher ceases to be a philosopher at the moment at which the 'subjective certainty' [quoting M. Alexandre Kojève] of a solution becomes stronger than his awareness of the problematic character of that solution. At that moment the sectarian is born. The danger of succumbing to the attraction of solutions is essential to philosophy which, without incurring this danger, would degenerate into playing with the problems. But the philosopher does not necessarily succumb to this danger, as is shown by Socrates, who never belonged to a sect and never founded one. And even if the philosophic friends are compelled to be members of a sect or to found one, they are not necessarily members of one and the same sect: Amicus Plato."

Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero," in Strauss, What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959), 116.

"Physical space and time are the absolute stupidest aspects of the universe" --José Ortega y Gasset

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." H. L. Mencken

This is not a quotation but is rather the use of "netizens" in place of "citizens."

I suspect "netizens" has been around for some time, but I first ran across it in Niall Ferguson, The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to Facebook. NY: Penguin Books, 2018. Ferguson makes the substitution occasionally (e.g., 415) but not always. He still uses "citizens" also.

This is not an optimistic book.

"Reality has no arbitrary professional boundaries."

—Peter Ulric Tse, The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013), xii.

"Half a million French soldiers didn't invade Russia simply because Napoleon willed it".
--Leo Tolstoy

Feliks wrote: ""Half a million French soldiers didn't invade Russia simply because Napoleon willed it".
--Leo Tolstoy"

I haven't read War and Peace since 1964. I vaguely recall that Tolstoy pooh-poohed the Great Leader theory of history, but would half a million French soldiers have invaded Russia had Napoleon not willed it? Would they have just invaded in a predetermined, leaderless way like programmed robots? Like much in Tolstoy, this doesn't make any sense to me.

Yes, from what I understand of him as well, I've discovered this to be his attitude.

In terms of nitty-gritty issues of military planning, (I think) what this quote of his states is that large bodies of men don't throw themselves into an abyss based on any leader's rash whim, no matter how charismatic he is. Instead, they place their trust in all the more familiar, more reliable, lower-level leaders such as sergeants (or perhaps lieutenants and captains) whom they see leading them every day. That is, men like themselves, vernacular men, men from the villages and towns like the ones they come from. 'Mediocre' men.

Looked at in this way, Tolstoy's sentiment makes sense. He's saying that France itself --flush with confidence and success at the granular, grass-roots level--France was ready at that point in time, to take on its next big challenge. It's almost like the modern theory of 'paradigm shift' or 'tipping point'.

It also rather applies to that phenomenon which was observed during the 1930s political rallies in Germany. A large crowd of Germans might stand listening to Hitler make his shrill, frenzied speeches; and maybe they were unconvinced or reluctant at first, possibly perhaps put off by the spectacle. No one wants to be the first to indulge an unproven, untested, madman. But his ideas really took hold when men in the audience turned to each other and confided, "you know, he's really talking sense"; this helped him gain adherents. I've heard it said that Hitler realized this in advance and would 'seed' a crowd with his cronies to circulate among the listeners and do exactly this.

Feliks wrote: "Yes, from what I understand of him as well, I've discovered this to be his attitude.

In terms of nitty-gritty issues of military planning, (I think) what this quote of his states is that large bo..."

However, but for Napoleon, it never would have happened. Napoleon was a necessary but sufficient condition for the invasion, just as Hitler's later decision to invade Russia was a necessary but not sufficient condition. In both instances, it was a crazy decision, not at all warranted by sound military strategy. Also, though I'm not an expert on this, I would guess that the common soldiers were more enamored of Napoleon and inclined to follow his leadership than Tolstoy admits. Did the common soldiers have more allegiance to their immediate military superiors, who were of a different class than they? (What would Marx and Lenin say about that?) Tolstoy had ideological axes to grind, and he ground them ad nauseum in this long, tedious novel. But I'm skating on epistemic thin ice here, as I don't know that much about that historical episode.

As for your post about Hitler, I have serious doubts. Hitler, like certain present-day authoritarian (or would-be authoritarian) leaders, had a strong populist following. But, again, I have never examined (or don't recall reading about) the exact scenario you present. Does anyone have any actual historical evidence for this, or is it just speculation?

Corporals and sergeants were the same class as foot-soldiers and privates, though. In Russia, yes Lenin/Trotsky exploited supra-class differences in the army, certainly. Good point there. But they also played up on intra-class solidarities. Using fellow-men to steer fellow-men. I think it's safe to say that crowds of men/citizens often follow what their neighbor does. Herd behavior and group-think...these don't strike me as theories too far-fetched or overly-audacious.

Great leaders have charisma and inspire ardor --but I privately think this is not enough to drive troops through the most harrowing mud, cold, and misery. In my (tiny) opinion I believe that men are confident in their leaders based on their successively having led them through crisis before; but when that fails they turn to their noncommissioned officers and to each other for reassurance.

There's a myriad of military reading I've done over the years, where I have probably gained this impression; I can't easily pinpoint it to just one instance. One reference though, might be Erich Maria Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front'. The upshot of that autobiography, is Remarque's assertion that when everything else fails, small units of men will fight for each other. Camrade-ship is the last motive which succeeds in keep men on the front lines of horrifying battles.

Re: Hitler, I'd have to think really hard to recall where I gleaned the anecdote about his manipulation of crowds. I admit I'm pinched on that one, it will be hard to re-discover the source. Might have been in Shirer, but I don't have Shirer on my home bookshelf any more.

p.s. Ha! Gotta grin at your disdain for "War and Peace." Its not as if you're shy of lengthy books, Alan Johnson. I'm currently enjoying Eric Foner's 'Reconstruction' but it's easily 600 pps. And its not the first juggernaut you've spurred me on to.

By the way, I'm curious about your high school reading now that you've mentioned both Tolstoy and Twain. Question, was there any one or two books which really set you on the course to your eventual law degree?

Feliks wrote: "By the way, I'm curious about your high school reading now that you've mentioned both Tolstoy and Twain. Question, was there any one or two books which really set you on the course to your eventual law degree?"

I graduated from high school in 1964. I had no intention of going to law school until late 1973. How, eventually, I decided to do this is a very long story (involving the gradual abandonment of three successive, alternative career paths), but it was not prompted by a book.

My recollection is that War and Peace was over a thousand pages long. There are many great books that are long, but I never again read a book that exceeded 1,000 pages. I wrote a paper on Tolstoy in my senior year in high school. Although the paper turned out well, it would be an understatement to say that I bit off more than I could chew. But I did that a lot in my early years.

Additionally, I found War and Peace to be extremely boring. Although I read a few interesting novels in college, I gradually came to prefer nonfiction to fiction, with the exception of a few great writers like Shakespeare. "Truth is stranger than fiction," as Ann Landers used to say (the title of her personal advice column, if I recall correctly).

With regard to the Tolystoyan theory about soldiers, I still have my doubts, but I will not pontificate further on it, being admittedly not possessed of sufficient historical data to affirm or deny it.

One that I quite like, and that is particularly prescient, is from Habermas in the 2005 book Between Naturalism and Religion:

"A 'post-truth democracy' would no longer be a democracy."

"If you don’t remember the past, you don’t deserve to be remembered by the future."

—Bob Doyle, Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: I-Phi Press, 2011), 25n3.

I don't agree with everything that H. L. Mencken said and wrote, but I almost always find his witticisms hilarious. The following may be said to be apt:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

H.L. Mencken

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

H.L. Mencken

Yes I too, heart Mencken! He and George Jean Nathan, as I recall, were originators of the "political magazine" in this country, which led to all the publications we know today. Anyway yes he is scathing and disturbing. His theory that 'democracy' results in 'mediocrity'. Whew! I don't even know what to say about it. What does he want to go back to, monarchy?

Feliks wrote: "Yes I too, heart Mencken! He and George Jean Nathan, as I recall, were originators of the "political magazine" in this country, which led to all the publications we know today. Anyway yes he is scathing and disturbing. His theory that 'democracy' results in 'mediocrity'. Whew! I don't even know what to say about it. What does he want to go back to, monarchy?"

I have not read enough of Mencken to know what his answer to this question is. His critique of democracy is reminiscent of Plato’s critique of democracy (which Plato thought led to tyranny, by the way) in Book 8 of the Republic. But Plato did not mean the same thing we mean by “democracy.” In Plato's Athens, “democracy” meant direct democracy wherein the citizens voted directly, not through representatives, on legislation, and selection was by lot (sortition) for most executive offices. The Athenian polis had virtually unlimited power. Unlike the United States, there was no developed separation of powers, checks and balances, church-state separation, and rule of law. In fact, James Madison and other framers deliberately designed the US republic to be in contrast to Athenian democracy. Plato famously taught in the Republic that the perfect regime was one governed by philosopher-kings. But, as Plato himself recognized in that very work, the rule of by philosopher kings is impossible for several reasons. What, then was Plato’s answer? His dialogue the Laws is usually thought of as his proposed second-best regime. But the regime that he actually advocated in practice in the Seventh Letter was one based on the rule of law, in which the governors are equally subject to the laws as the governed. I have not recently reread the Laws to ascertain the extent, if any, to which that dialogue corresponds to the law-based regime advocated in the Seventh Letter.

When Aristotle considered this question in his Politics, he ended up with a mixed regime that was somewhat similar to the conception of the US republic. Indeed, at least some of the American founders (including Jefferson) consulted Aristotle in thinking about and formulating the principles of the government that became the United States (though Jefferson himself was not a member of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, as he had a diplomatic position in France at the time).

One of the most apt discussions of this issue was in Winston Churchill’s November 7, 1947 speech to the British House of Commons: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.” (Emphasis added.) Earlier in the speech, Churchill observed:

The whole history of this country shows a British instinct—and, I think I may say, a genius—for the division of power. The American Constitution, with its checks and counterchecks, combined with its frequent appeals to the people, embodied much of the ancient wisdom of this island. Of course, there must be proper executive power to any Government, but our British, our English idea, in a special sense, has always been a system of balanced rights and divided authority, with many other persons and organised bodies having to be considered besides the Government [executive authority] of the day and the officials they employ. This essential British wisdom is expressed in many foreign Constitutions which followed our Parliamentary system, outside the totalitarian zone, but never was it so necessary as in a country which has no written Constitution.

Winston S. Churchill, Europe Unite: Winston Churchill's Post-War Speeches (New York: Rosetta Books, 2014) (originally published 1950), locs. 3371-3376 of 8629, Kindle.

Mencken was right, as was Plato, in criticizing the aberrations of democracy and the mentality (or lack thereof) of the “democratic man” (or woman, as the case may be). But as Churchill recognized—channeling the wisdom of Aristotle, Jefferson, Madison, and others—“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that that have been tried from time to time . . . .” Utopian dreams have usually resulted, especially in modern times, in some form of totalitarianism, e.g., the Terror of the French Revolution and the Communist dictatorships in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and elsewhere, not to mention the fascist dictatorships of Hitler, Mussolini, and others, past and present. It is better to build on concepts of rule of law and individual rights along with a clear and rational conception of the common good.

Thanks Alan. Your commentary aligns with what I have read.

Mencken may have been talking about mediocrity in the arts, intellectual life or sports. Modern life has proven that popularity does not equal quality or excellence in those areas. Mencken could be curmudgeonly about popular culture. Felix’ quote with no context feels like that sort of grouchiness.

Brad wrote: "Mencken may have been talking about mediocrity in the arts, intellectual life or sports. Modern life has proven that popularity does not equal quality or excellence in those areas. Mencken could be curmudgeonly about popular culture. Felix’ quote with no context feels like that sort of grouchiness."

To which quote of Feliks's are you referring?

I am not an expert on Mencken, but from what I have read of him it seems to me that he is referring to Americans generally. But, as I say, I have not read widely in his writings so I cannot be sure. He does appear to be a master of the bon mot. The Wikipedia article on him states, among other things, that he was a Nietzschean and a racist. He also was a libertarian--opposed to the New Deal and friendly with Ayn Rand (who reciprocated the admiration). In short, nothing I say should be indicated as being in agreement with his views. But his isolated quotes, taken out of context, are sometimes wonderful.

He was, probably, a bad man, albeit one with a truly wicked wit and occasional (but sometimes misguided) insights into the human soul.

My favorite sentence from the Wikipedia article: "In 1931 the Arkansas legislature passed a motion to pray for Mencken's soul after he had called the state the "apex of moronia.""

Your quote, Alan, gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for sharing.

(Felix’ quote that I referenced was the bit about democracy leading to mediocrity.)

Mencken's remark --his general attitude towards American citizens --appeals to the cynic in all of us; seems like something which daily headlines continually reinforce to all our disadvantage and embarrassment. The legendary provincialism and backwoods dullness of Americans. Lampooned by Twain, Will Rogers, Henry James, Louis Auchincloss; sundry others. As much as we relish it, the disjunct is that Mencken still does not seem to have appropriate ammo for assailing democracy itself. Yes, the American form of democracy could be bettered; the intellect of American populace could be greatly improved, surely. All that can be granted outright. Would that make more heroes to satisfy Mencken? It's a question of no moment. The pith is: can democracy itself be bettered? If so, where? By what? By what other system? Using what criteria for the judgment? This is where Mencken's savor falls short. I call his attitude entertaining and remonstrative; but only halfway towards full astuteness. It's more like laziness; plucking the low-hanging fruit. Taking the cheap shot. What form of governance would he like to advocate? What star should we steer for? He doesn't say.

Feliks wrote: "Mencken's remark --his general attitude towards American citizens --appeals to the cynic in all of us; seems like something which daily headlines continually reinforce to all our disadvantage and e..."

Well said, Feliks. It reminds me of a criticism of Mencken I read long ago, to the effect that Mencken was always negative. I don't remember who wrote that or the exact statement, but if you or someone else does, please share it with us.

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said, to which Will Rogers added: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.”