Political Philosophy

Richard Ostrofsky
(December, 1998)

Philosophy seems to be a hot topic these days to judge by the interest in the
philosophy section at Second Thoughts Bookstore. Oddly, political philosophy
and cultural criticism are relatively dead. The reason, perhaps, is a certain
despair: that current politics and geo-politics don’t bear thinking about; that
nothing new and interesting can really be said; and that, in any case, nothing can
be done. Specific political movements are lively, and certain political events and
figures capture people’s imaginations, but I sense a deep reluctance to ask and
contemplate the fundamental issues of politics: Who does what to whom? Who
gets what? Says whom? And by what right?
I believe this is a pity for several reasons, not the least of which are that I have
a good selection of books on the subject that I would like to sell, and an
assortment of thoughts that I would like to share. But apart from these vested
interests, I think there is a real need for philosophical discussion of politics today
– motivated by intellectual curiosity, rather than factional passion. The world is
changing more rapidly than at any time in the past, and its political ideas seem
increasingly antiquated. Governments all around the world seem to be in trouble
– clinging desperately to their last shreds of moral authority, however much
power they may still have; and, more and more obviously, they seem out of their
depth in directing or regulating the course of global change. Power itself seems to
be flowing away from political institutions, and toward the economic ones, with
long-term consequences that no one can foresee. It has been described as a trend
toward a kind of corporate feudalism – except that no feudal holdings were ever
as geographically dispersed as the present ones, nor had such technological
means at their command, nor such complex imperatives and interests. Capital is
sovereign now: Men do not own their tools anymore; the tools own the men.
These trends and their implications are beyond anyone’s control, but they are
still worth thinking about. A degree of consciousness about what is happening,
and what we thoughtfully would want to happen, is probably the only way to feel
like part of the steamroller, and not like part of the road. Moreover, the new
conditions call for some new political ideas, which are not at all the same thing as
political sentiments or political slogans. Political ideas are used eventually for
framing constitutions, and laws, and interpretations of laws. Political ideas
become the basis of political judgment. The ideas we have about politics and
government are noticeably out-of-date and increasingly irrelevant to the world
that is coming to pass. We desperately need some fresh ones; but to get them we
must prepare the ground by raising the crucial questions, and keeping them raised
– in print, in the media, and in casual discussion.
To kindle discussion, here are a few questions that occur to me – urgent,
philosophical in nature, yet never satisfactorily resolved by political philosophy –
even to the extent of mapping adequately the structures of dispute:
How is the relationship between power and wealth best conceptualized? We
think of them as ethically distinct, and as belonging to separate intellectual
disciplines (politics and economics) and even to separate sectors of society
(government and business, public and private) yet this is clearly too simple a
story. Under what circumstances (if any) can monopolistic and oligopolistic
ownership and business practices be justified, given the confusion they entail
between the spheres of political and economic power?
Can we attach any meaning to the concept of a “public interest” – apart from
the interests of the state on one hand, and of a prevailing coalition on the other?
Is representative democracy an adequate solution to the problem of ensuring that
government works for the “public interest”?
Is the concept of property coherent? Can an oil field be private property in the
same sense that your automobile is property? Why precisely, and within what
limits is it the state’s business to defend property claims?
Under what circumstances are individuals justified in evading the state’s
demands when these become oppressive or outrageous? Few of us these days
would wholly condemn draft dodging, tax evasion, or “fuzz busting” anti-radar.
Are people entitled to do their best to get the state to leave them alone?
Does the state have a mandate to intervene in changing social attitudes, even
in a “good” cause? (If the state can intervene to promote tolerance for people it
likes, can it also intervene to promote intolerance against the people it dislikes? If
not, why not? Its machinery of propaganda, after all, works at least as well in one
direction as the other.)
Political theory has tended to conceive the civil service as a passive
instrument in the hands of elected politicians, yet we know it has both
competence and interests that the politicians do not share. How is the civil
service best organized as a distinct branch of government so as to empower it as
a regulatory/executive agency, liberate it from its characteristic “cover-your-ass”
(or “CYA”) mentality, and hold it accountable for its self-serving actions and
negligence?
These are just a few of very many political questions that we need to think
about. The point is not to take sides on them, but to understand the issues
involved, so that we can recognize an honest policy or politician when we see
one.