No Sense of Decency

 

"Decency" is a word which seems to have a fairly broad definition.  It seems associated for the most part with propriety; conduct which conforms to what is considered proper, generally in a moral sense.  Those without decency act in such a manner as to call into question their worth or quality as acceptable members of society.  Someone with no sense of decency acts dishonorably, and fails to conform to standards people are expected to meet in their dealings with others.

A famous example of the use of the word is what took place in the course of hearings involving the infamous Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin, known as the Army-McCarthy hearings.  These addressed McCarthy's claims that the army was filled with Communists.

Joseph Welch was the lawyer for the army.  During one of the hearings McCarthy revealed that a young member of Welch's staff once signed a petition supportive of the Communist Party.  There was apparently no claim he joined the party at any time, but McCarthy made the statement in an effort to assert that the staffer and others defending the army, including Welch himself, had Communist sympathies.

Being associated with the Communist Party in those times could ruin a career or even life. Welch famously chastised McCarthy in response, accusing him of character assassination of the staffer for no good reason and asking "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" It was a dramatic moment, and it's considered that this response triggered the decline in McCarthy's popularity and influence.

As a result of this moment, which was made during a televised hearing and was widely replayed, McCarthy was thought by many to have acted improperly, in a dishonorable manner; to have been unjust and cruel in an effort to score a trivial point. He acted indecently. 

I'm uncertain whether something similar could take place now. Certainly if it did now all would know of it and would see it almost instantly, but I don't think it would have the same impact.  That's because I feel many of us, and most and perhaps all of those who currently dominate and influence our plutocracy, have no sense of decency.  As a consequence, they can't be shamed as others were in the past.

What we see enacted now is being done not merely without thought but as if considerations of justice and honesty are no longer of any importance.  There are no standards which apply, or at least no standards which those in power believe people think should be met.  Moral conduct, and in particular honorable conduct, is neither expected nor thought to be admirable in these sad times.  It is only important that a policy or agenda is advanced, or what is desired is acquired, without incurring a loss.

We may have become an indecent society, or nation, or civilization.

The Dangers of Free Expression

Ah, the halcyon days of the House Un-American Activities Committee ("HUAC").  See the giants of HUAC above, Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, hard at work.  Have those days returned, or are they returning?

The People's House, as it is called by some without apparent irony, or at least certain of its members, recently took the opportunity to posture for us by interrogating high officials of certain Ivy League schools regarding anti-semitic speech and conduct if not in the halls of academia then on campus.  As a result, certain of them have resigned or are on the cusp of doing so, and the professionally outraged and great donating individuals and corporations are gunning for their jobs.

It's always amusing when politicians strike attitudes for the cameras and exercise their relatively limited powers of expression on most any topic.  But this is particularly the case when self-righteousness is what is on display.  To be frank, the very idea of members of Congress inquiring into free expression isn't merely amusing; it's alarming.  Their tendency is to regulate, as regulation involves the exercise of powers that, unfortunately, are given them, and except for the acquisition of money it is the exercise of power which gives them the most joy.

So, any meeting of a committee of Congress for the purpose of exploring issues which may be impacted by First Amendment concerns, or questions of morals, is prima facie disturbing.  What seems to be motivating the head hunting now taking place, though, is itself disturbing, as it seems that the sad recipients of Congressional attention had difficulty affirming that advocating the extermination of the Jewish people would violate the codes of their institutions relating to bullying and harassment. 

Calling for genocide would seem objectionable per se.  Ambivalence on whether it is in the case of Jews in particular is especially objectionable at this time, given increasing instances of anti-semitism, which is what evidently led to this latest salle by Congress into higher education.  One would think that it would only make sense to confirm that calling for genocide of a people is bullying and harassment even in Ivy League schools.

Just what caused the hesitance and equivocation isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be motivated by the belief that, at least in the academy, there should be few if any limits on expression.  Just why this would be believed is also unclear, to me at least.  To a certain extent, I tend to blame John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty.  On the question of freedom of speech, he remains something of an idol.  Mill is thought by today's version of conservatives to be a liberal, and therefore evil, but the truth is he was very much a Classical Liberal, which is what conservatives were in many instances in the days when conservatism was a legitimate point of view.  He is perhaps more accurately called a Libertarian.

Regardless, though, when it comes to free expression Mill was unfortunately something of an absolutist.  Thus, according to him--"if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

There is danger in absolutism.  In the case of free expression, claiming that all expression must be free requires the suspension of intelligent judgment.  It requires that we accept the view that all speech be treated as equal in value and merit.  That simply is not the case, and no appeal to a mythical "marketplace of ideas" justifies such an irresponsible position.  In fact, as we should know to an increasingly reasonable degree of certainty, people will believe anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how insensible, no matter how irrational, and once believing won't be persuaded not to believe.

This is not to say that there's anything seemly or worthy in the histrionics being engaged in by certain politicians and the wealthy as they seek to outdo each other in their self-righteous demands for academic blood.  But it is to say that free expression can be dangerous, and isn't always to be allowed.

The Day of the Demagogue

 If you look up the definition of the word "demagogue" or check the Wikipedia entry for it, you'll see it all there, in black and white.  The characteristics of most of our politicians, and of one of them especially, as well as their "playbook" are set forth in some detail.  Lying, fearmongering, scapegoating, personal insults and attacks--it's like a roll call of conduct engaged in by the most indicted candidate in the history of our Great Union, and likely of any other nation. 

It's easy enough to learn what demagogues are and what they do.  They're of a type and have done the same things throughout our history, beginning with the first known demagogue, Cleon of Athens, born in the 5th century B.C.E.  No doubt there were others before him, whose names we just don't know.

The most simple and succinct definition of "demagogue" of which I'm aware is that provided by H.L. Mencken:  "The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."  The demagogue is a prolific liar who has learned that in certain circumstances, particularly in matters of politics, lies are important because they'll be believed by those who either cannot think or refuse to do so.  Mencken viewed democracy as so stupid a form of government that it encourages, and perhaps even requires, demagogues because so much is left to the decisions of the ordinary voter and the intelligence of the ordinary voter is minimal.  The success of demagogues throughout history makes one wonder if he's right.

A demagogue, however, isn't necessarily as stupid as those who believes the lies he makes.  A demagogue need only appear to be, or pretend to be, as much of an idiot as those who support him.  So it is a mistake to take a demagogue lightly.  A demagogue may be just intelligent enough to take advantage of others by inciting fear, or anger, or envy and promising the world to them, or posing as the only person who can save them from the evils he has conjured.  It's more likely that a demagogue is ignorant, or is a sociopath, than a fool.

One thing seems apparent.  It isn't necessary that a demagogue be physically attractive or impressive to be successful.  The most successful one of this time in our Great Republic seems to me to be an oddity.  Perhaps it's the hair.  His "mug shot" which his followers think is so beguiling makes him look as if he's about to burst into tears of frustration such as a child might do when deprived of a favorite toy or treat.  Hitler certainly wasn't an impressive looking man, though his propagandists did their best to make him so, portraying him in a knight's armor and other manly guises.  Mussolini took on the appearance of a marionette.  He would have made a fine bobble head.  Joe McCarthy looked like a small-time mafioso.

Demagogues are said to have charisma, but if that's the case it seems charisma is unrelated to physical appearance.

What accounts for the success of demagogues?  Why is it that the techniques employed by them down through the centuries are so well known, and ultimately lead to disaster, but succeed again and again?  

Clearly, there's something wrong with us.  

It's enough to cause one to despair of democracy as a viable form of government.  But the curious thing is that the aims of demagogues and their followers are not democratic at all.  They're autocratic or totalitarian, in fact.  So, democracy may itself be viable, but be subject to perversion by its nature given a propensity to accept demagogues.  This is a weakness not in the democratic form of government but in those governed.  Democracy may be a form of government that's intended only for the intelligent.

The painting shown above, by the way, is called The Demagogue and is by Jose Clemente Orozco.

Doomed to Repeat

The insight, or at least the statement, that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it (with some variation in words used), has been attributed to several figures of note in our history.  George Santayana, Winston Churchill and Edmund Burke are some of those who are said to have made this claim.  The statement implies that those who know history aren't doomed to repeat it.  That may be true, but it remains the case that they may repeat history or are even likely to do so; they're just not doomed to do so.

The fact is that we repeat ourselves, in more ways than one.  Repetition is a constant in our affairs.  Repetition is even said to be useful in some respects.  It may strengthen memory or memorization, for example.  It may in ways not entirely clear to me guide us to concentrate in meditation, as in the use of a mantra, which in turn in ways not entirely clear to me may guide us to wisdom or enlightenment.  On the other hand, it may bore or annoy us.  But we do it.  As I've said (though not yet repeatedly).

But the claim, I believe, promises too much if only by implication, and is in that sense misleading.  Merely knowing history does very little for us.  History may be taught each minute of the day in schools of all sorts and we may even remember the history we're taught, but knowledge of history doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge of human nature, or provide lessons in how to conduct ourselves now and later, unless we're also taught to think.  

We're not taught to think, particularly in elementary and high schools as they're called here in our Great Republic.  Perhaps it's more accurate to claim that those who don't know how to think are doomed to repeat history. 

For example, the danger posed by demagogues, and the tricks employed by them to sway people and even to commit violence, has been known and been the subject of study since the 5th century B.C.E., and perhaps even earlier.  We know of Cleon, Alcibiades, Publius Clodius Pulcher from ancient times, religious rabble-rousers from medieval times, the fanatics of the French Revolution like Marat, and of course more recently Mussolini, Hitler, McCarthy and Huey Long, and demagogues are rife in our current politics.  Most of us know at least some of the members of this rogues gallery, and at least some of what they did, and it makes no significant difference to their--repetition.  Demagogues abide.

I think of the demagogue as an example of our propensity to repeat history because it's that time of year in our Glorious Union when politicians vie for our favor in what we're pleased to call elections.  Perhaps there are parts of the country where TV, the Internet, and all other forms of media are not crowded with political appeals, but in the place where I reside those appeals are ceaseless, and omnipresent.  And there can be no better examples of demagoguery than these appeals.  Sanctimony, fear-mongering, pandering, polarizing tactics, misrepresentations, evasiveness, lying, appeals to emotion, authority and bigotry...all of the usual characteristics of this practice are present in abundance.  The appeals are incessant.  

It's at least possible, and more likely probable, that those bombarded by this treacle, by these disingenuous if not outright dishonest commercials made by and for glorified carnival barkers, are aware of demagogues of the past and may even think them despicable.  But their ubiquity indicates that they're effective (they cost money, and money is most important), and if they're effective that indicates that our knowledge of history be damned, were doomed to repeat it.

I tend to agree with John Dewey's insight that we only think when confronted with problems.  Otherwise, we act based largely on habits accrued over a lifetime.  But we must believe a problem exists before we have recourse to thought, i.e. the use and application of intelligence.

We don't believe repeating the mistakes of the past is a problem, unfortunately.  Perhaps we believe we're doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we're aware of it.  

We know history or don't, AND are doomed to repeat it regardless.