"The Influence of Ancient Politics on Modern Political" Topic

…Systems

"Most people believe ancient political systems have had a minimal effect on politics of the modern and postmodern world. The common belief is that the ancient world was largely barbarian with human rights virtually non-existent, so history from that time must be discounted. Is this a correct assumption or is there something can we learn about politics from antiquity?

The earliest Western civilizations were theocratic, but that model became obsolete with the advent of warfare. Winning in battle required military leadership and the power generated by a military leader's success led to the evolution of kingship as the center of civil power in the state. The next step in the evolution of government was the monarchy, which bolted hereditary authority onto the kingship model. Monarchies were the most common form of government before the Enlightenment. They survived because the authoritarian state could manage the society efficiently and, at the same time, protect its status…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

There's a reason Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the barely disguised pseudonym of "Publius" when writing the Federalist Papers.

Polybius' description of the Roman constitution (mixed and balanced) was hugely influential.

But this is something that educated people used to know. My students (10th and 11th grades) over a thirty year period leaned it thoroughly. Today, not so much, unless someone happily knows better.

I shudder when I hear people spout "democracy", because I think of Athenian democracy, which was "mob rule", and I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of that system…

From Mike Anderson's Ancient History Blog.

When I was teaching US history, I certainly taught it plus the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment as well as the Federalist Papers.

Website blocked due to a suspicious top level domain (TLD)
Website blocked: mikeanderson.biz

Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocked this page because it uses a suspicious top level domain (TLD). These are frequently used by scam or phishing sites, but can be used by legitimate websites as well. If you trust this website, please click CONTINUE TO SITE. Otherwise, choose GO BACK.

I just went to the website and see no problem.

Kevin, yes indeed; it was the norm. When was your last classroom experience? I'm curious if you have noticed some of the trends that concern me. After 2000 I saw a noticeable change in student attitudes and behavior (reacting to the same content I'd been teaching since the 1970s). It became very bad at the local university where I adjuncted (for 25 years) until a few years ago. My best classroom experiences in the past decade were in the prison, which was to an extent "stuck in time".

That's funny, Doc.
I used to be a Wearer of Many Hats at a factory where we hired a lot of prisoners on Work Release.
They were the most reliable workers we had (for showing up…). But as soon as they completed their sentence, they never showed up. I should point out that they still had a guaranteed job.

"The earliest Western civilizations were theocratic, but that model became obsolete with the advent of warfare. Winning in battle required military leadership and the power generated by a military leader's success led to the evolution of kingship as the center of civil power in the state. The next step in the evolution of government was the monarchy…"

Of course, there was no warfare under theocracy. Or kings.

Fortunately, there was also only limited written language, so one didn't have to read tosh like this.

When was your last classroom experience?

I retired in 2013 and my last history teaching year was 2010-2011.

I was asked while my son was in high school to make two period-long presentations on how to conduct research in 2016 and 2017.

The prison I teach and mentor in is "character-and-faith-based" and set up a bit like a boarding school or a Benedictine abbey. There's a curriculum. LOTS of religious instruction. A comparative religion course is required, and outside groups are in pretty much constantly doing their own thing. You see prayer rugs, and there's a synagogue, and of course a lot of Christian groups. The men volunteer to be there, instread of one of the larger rougher and more secular prisons (although those have character and faith based dorms). So it is a higher class of offenders. No gangs, no stabbings.

'Religious instruction' by whom?

Annnnnd they're off!

By the various faith groups. The only thing the state requires is a course in comparative religions. (I did the class on protestantism for several years. A rabbi came in to do Judaism, etc.) The curriculum has a core of required things like anger management, and room for electives, many of which are tied to particular faiths. (I did a course on "the Christian imagination", which included teaching Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" to 25 men who included half a dozen murderers.) Outside groups come in almost every evening and have their own worship services and/or instruction, all very voluntary. Remember that the men CHOOSE to be at this character-and-faith-based institution. It should be pointed out, as well, that the typical rate of recidivism is around 65 or 75% and for men released after this program it is more like 10%.

I shudder when I hear people spout "democracy", because I think of Athenian democracy, which was "mob rule", and I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of that system…

Athenian Democracy was not mob rule. Are there some who believe that it was? Absolutely. Voting in classical Athens was quite limited in that it was not universal.

There are three basic buckets who didn't like the Athenian model:

1. The Roman upper classes who theorized that the poor would take risks (especially military risks) with the body politic on the gamble of "what did they have to lose?" It must be pointed out that the upper classes managed to remain at war almost continually and were a major factor in the collapse of the Republic.

2. The Founders fondly discussed 1. above but it was propaganda to justify them limiting the vote to the top 25% of the white male population.

3. Modern day reactionaries with unpopular, self serving agendas use this argument to not have to adjust tone-deaf platforms.

Hannibal destroyed the Republic by wiping out the class of citizen-farmer-soldiers. Athenian democracy worked in part because no equipment was required to pull an oar in the fleet. Hoplite armor was expensive and restricted citizenship to the middle class.

Where did the Founders limit suffrage? to 25%? not in Virginia. States set suffrage, then as now.

Suffrage in Virginia required 100 acres of unimproved land or 25 acres with a house on it. At least half, and more probably around 2/3 of free white men qualified at the time of the Revolution. Virginia was a deferential society, with a planter ruling class, but restricted suffrage was not the reason.

Lol, it may be more like 25% of the total white population. It still proves my point…unbelievable.

Well, NOWHERE did women vote, nor slaves. Not what we would consider democratic, certainly. Virginia pretty much applied the old English requirement (only land owners can vote) automatically, but then discovered that a rule that produced a very small class of voters on a small island produced a very large class of voters on a huge continent. They ended up with a relatively democratic system without really intending it. But they needed a lot of weapons-carriers. As in classical Greece or Republican Rome, military service and political participation went hand-in-hand. The big reason for the change to chattel black slavery after Bacon's Rebellion was that white indentured servants had to be armed (unless the planter wanted to fight the Indians by himself) but you cannot keep an armed population politically inert.

Suffrage was limited to free (white, of course) property owners. In other words, those who had a stake in it.

You cannot name another society in 1776 in which citizenship and suffrage was more widely held. It is very unfair and unhistorical to apply present-day standards to the society which later on DEVELOPED those very standards.

Initially in the new US, suffrage was for male landowners, later that changed to white male landowners.

And the people should be judged by the standards of the times, not by standards of the early 21st century.

Well, it varied state by state. Some states required you to be a tax payer but not necessarily a landowner. Universal white male suffrage arrived gradually, typically in the western states first (ditto for women, later on).

PDF link

In general, the major institutional innovation of doing away with all suffrage qualifications related to property, or economic standing more generally, was led by new states entering the Union (see Table 1). Not a single state that entered the Union after the thirteen colonies had a property requirement for the franchise, and although a few adopted tax-based qualifications, it was only in Louisiana that the restriction was a serious constraint and endured very long. Most of the original thirteen states (all but 9 Rhode Island, Virginia, and North Carolina) eliminated property qualifications by the middle of the 1820s, but tax-based requirements for suffrage (and for the holding of public office) lingered on in many of them into the middle of the nineteenth century and beyond. Of the states formed of the originally settled areas, the leaders in doing away with economic-based qualifications for the franchise were those that were sparsely settled and on the fringe (Vermont, New Hampshire, and Georgia).

I would like to point out that I was responding only to Zephyr1's post which seemed very current to me.

While we are on the subject though, doc mcb, there is a difference between simply recounting what was done and, for one instance, justifying what people did by claiming that everyone else did it too. Is that an excuse for behavior today? I will wager that there are things from the past that you aren't alright with just because everyone else did it also.

Lol, at 60% in Virginia could vote. You mention a lot that you teach. Is that what you teach your people, that a 3/5 compromise is good enough?

In 1780 or 1790 roughly half the population lived in subsistence farming areas. They did not use money, did not pay taxes, and did not vote. Many of them would have been hard put to NAME someone from a different state. This is why, originally, we have the Electoral College.

The rise of universal male suffrage corresponded with the rise of mass parties and campaigning based on symbolism, culminating in 1840. Parties are "brands" which voters can be loyal to without the need for any knowledge.

MP, you know the 3/5 WAS a compromise, right? which means nobody wanted it. The south wanted slaves counted 100% for population and 0% for taxation; the north wanted the opposite. Nobody wanted 3/5.

Fair appraisals require consideration of realistic alternatives. Comparing the new US against Britain at the same time is fair. Comparing the US in 1780 with the US in 1880 or 1980 is only fair to the extent that the adult develops out of the child.

Thinking historically is in essence the recognition that living in different periods of the past is akin to living today in different parts of the world, or with speaking different languages. The fundamental assumptions of OUR time and OUR place cannot be assumed to be some sort of norm. Progress DOES occur, but so does regression; we are a more cruel society today, in some ways, than a hundred or two hundred years ago. We honor prophets who challenge the prevailing standards of their own time or place, e.g. MLK, but that very awarding of honor requires recognition that our assumptions and standards were not theirs.

There ARE universal standards, but societies meet them, or fail to meet them, in a myriad of ways. And some of them come in opposing pairs; we all believe in justice, and we all believe in mercy, but which shall prevail, and when, and how?

MP, you know the 3/5 WAS a compromise, right? which means nobody wanted it. The south wanted slaves counted 100% for population and 0% for taxation; the north wanted the opposite. Nobody wanted 3/5.

Yeah but that's not really what I was talking about but rather how you thought the percentage of discrimination was more important than the Founder's intent to discriminate.

I stick by my original statement that the concept that Athenian democracy was mob rule is erroneous and further a convenient fiction for the three groups I listed above.

Apparently, you don't want to judge people from the past for their behavior but we don't only judge the ancients by contemporary standards to pull them down but also to warn that their behavior is unacceptable today.

For instance, I love the British colonial period but that doesn't mean I don't think it wasn't massively racist and the people that lived its privileges weren't also racist. Doesn't mean I cant enjoy it all but it needs to be taught that it was wrong and should never be repeated.

I also don't for a second believe they didn't know better; However, they at least had the courage to admit they were colonials and racists and enjoy it. They didn't simper and snivel that other colonials were far more racist than they were. You'd never hear a British colonel asked to justify exploiting India say "What about Brazil!?"

I take it you believe the Founders were wrong about who should be allowed to vote, that the 3/5's compromise was an awful blight and that we should consider their Spirit of 76 viewpoints quaint but strive to make sure every citizen can vote today whether they are hard to reach or not?

The Founders understood that one principle of successful self-government was compromise.

And without the Founders and their hard work and resulting creation, flaws and all, they gave us a country which is a republic with guiding principles too many seem to have forgotten or are ignoring.

MP, actually, I'd like to see voting limited to everyone who can pass the test we give immigrants to become citizens. Like a drivers license test, except for steering the country. The "everybody should vote" idea is just our mythology; there is no rational reason for it.

I have some sympathy with doc mcb's idea, though as a UK citizen I have no idea what your citizenship test for immigrants is like – ours is risible.

If you were going into hospital for, let's say, an operation to remove a brain tumour, would you be happy for your surgery to be decided by a majority vote which included surgeons, nurses, pharmacists, porters, ambulance drivers and cleaners, with no weighting being given to the specialist practitioners' opinions?

I'd like to see voting limited to everyone who can pass the test we give immigrants to become citizens. Like a drivers license test, except for steering the country. The "everybody should vote" idea is just our mythology; there is no rational reason for it.

A 'voting test'? You've got to be kidding. Voting is a right, not a privilege whereas having a driver's license is just the opposite.

Seems to me you want to limit voting in the US which is not only unconstitutional it is ludicrous. Do you also want to go back to Jim Crow laws and have to guess the number of gumballs in a jar in order to vote?

Absolute nonsense on your part and it is just plain wrong.

Your analogy is "ludicrous in the extreme". Your words, I believe, officially approved and sanctioned by The Editor.
What does having everyone, not just immigrants, pass a citizenship test have to do with Jim Crow or guessing gum balls?
I've seen the videos of immigrants solemnly taking the Oath, and I find it inspiring.
Once you're a citizen, you're a citizen. I'd like to see some of the recent gangs try to take a citizenship test.

I'm not going to use your debating "gotcha" tricks, and ask a dumb question like "So, do you approve of illegal immigrants voting in presidential elections?"
No. I'm not going to ask that. You're too intelligent.

Kevin, please explain WHY voting is a right. Beyond your say-so. Does it extend to, say, children? to felons? to non-citizens? If not, why not?

If it is a right, it is a CIVIL right, granted by government, and not a natural right we are born with. Does government get to decide who has that right? It always has, and the number is always less than everybody.

The problem with the literacy tests under Jim Crow was that they were unfairly applied. Theoretically today everyone is literate, provided the public schools are competent, and has some knowledge of civics -- increasingly problematic assumptions, of course.

It is interesting to see the same people holding the contradictory views of desiring mass voting AND reliance on experts.

If you don't understand the right to vote, then nothing I, nor anyone else, can say that will convince you.

Suffice it to say that your idea is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

But this is something that educated people used to know.

I wonder where you learned your version of civics?

It wasn't unconstitutional in 1789. You love to play fast and loose with definitions. Suffice it to say that I don't agree with some (many) of yours.

I'm away from my library now, so…
Some philosopher once observed that when The People decide that they can vote themselves the power to take away money and property from the wealthy and give it to themselves, then that is the beginning of the end for a Republic. There have been lots of Republics in history. None lasted very long.
I think I'll stay out of the DH for now, and not draw any further observations. I lack the "keyboard courage" to continue. But then, I'm not the Golden Child.

States set the requirements for suffrage. Constitutional amendments restrict them from using sex or age over 18, or a poll tax, but they still control who votes, in federal elections. Civics 101.

And you dodged rather than answered. Would you want felons and 10 year olds and non-citizens to vote? why or why not? What does voting MEAN? What does representation mean? These are basic questions that a good civics course would address.

What is the constitutional provision that determines who can vote for a US Congressman? Specific clause and language.

I don't think ideas can be illegal. Thought is free, as are dreams. At least, for now. Expressing unwelcome opinions, of course, can be illegal; in certain jurisdictions.

It wasn't unconstitutional in 1789.

It is today. And that is what the subject was referring to in the posting I answered. There are laws and Constitutional amendments against restricting the right to vote.

Please try and keep up.

And the people should be judged by the standards of the times, not by standards of the early 21st century.

No, it's not a quote by "Anonymous". It's by Kevin, just a few posts above.
So my reference to 1789 is valid.
Do try to keep up.
We're not going by the "if Kevin defines something his way, we have to go with what he says" standard. Even though I quoted you to show you agree with me.

Kevin, be specific. What language in the constitution as amended prohibits restricting the right to vote? The women's suffrage amendment, the poll tax, the 18 yo; did I miss one? Can felons vote? who decides? could 16 or 17 yos vote? who decides? And you still are not answering my questions.

Any state restriction on voting would face strict scrutiny from the courts, obviously, and restrictions would have to be applied evenly. But iirc felons can now vote in one or two states but not elsewhere. What in the Constitution allows that?

States set the requirements for suffrage. Constitutional amendments restrict them from using sex or age over 18, or a poll tax, but they still control who votes, in federal elections. Civics 101.

Yes, but too many states with prior histories of discrimination make it difficult for certain groups to vote which constitute serious abuses. Also, recent changes to SCOTUS have made them sympathetic to allowing those states to recommence discriminatory voting practices. You are hiding behind the law as if those directing it at a state level have a history of being fair and honest, they have not.

And you dodged rather than answered. Would you want felons and 10 year olds and non-citizens to vote? why or why not? What does voting MEAN? What does representation mean? These are basic questions that a good civics course would address.

I think most felons should vote. Why not? The other two groups should not vote.

You shouldn't accuse people of dodging, it could come back to haunt you.

Any state restriction on voting would face strict scrutiny from the courts, obviously, and restrictions would have to be applied evenly. But iirc felons can now vote in one or two states but not elsewhere. What in the Constitution allows that?

My observation is that you tend to use morals when it suits you, black letter law when it suits you, historical story telling when it suits you and Constitutional Strict Constructionalism when it suits you. To an outsider, it smacks of moral relativity. That's your prerogative but you keep insisting you are a teacher. I have to ask just what sort of teacher are you and what exactly are your credentials? I ask this because a teacher, one who is more than a teacher in name only, is supposed to produce thinkers and not clones of their own view of how the world should be ordered. Your approach comes of as more of a political viewpoint than one of learning.

Also, yours (and others) collective statements that you cannot judge people from the past by today's morals is a problem with the Founders. It is apparent that you think their rules should bind us today. How do you reconcile that we cannot judge them by today's standards but they can tell us how to live our lives in these times?

BA and MA in history, Rice University, 1968 and 1971.

PhD in history, University of Virginia, 1977.

I've been teaching at high school and college level since 1974.

The restriction of suffrage by southern states after 1890 and until 1965 was wrong, an abuse of state power. But the power IS the states' to use or abuse. If you are casting blame, why not the Supreme Court in Plessy?

But it is simply a FACT that states make the laws about voting. Like it or not.