Political Theatre category archive

At Psychology Today Blogs. Neel Burton takes an in-depth look at what classical philosophers–Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Seneca, etc.–had to say about tyranny. All of them had intimate knowledge of, and, in many cases, first-hand experience with tyrannical rulers.

In the course of the article, he suggests three conditions that must be met to hold tyranny at bay. In the context of dis coarse discourse, they give rise to feelings of–er–unease (emphasis added):

First, we need to ensure that a life spent in politics remains an attractive prospect, or at the very least a tolerable one, or else sensible people will be put off from going into politics, hollowing out the center and leaving us to be governed, or misgoverned, by disturbed and power-hungry fanatics.

Second, we need to think more carefully about education, and what it means to be educated. Unless we transform ourselves by carrying out the work of the mind, we could be millionaires, like Nero, or Putin, and still be miserable. Playing the tyrant, and taking everyone down with us, is not, as Seneca reminds us, what human beings are for.

Third, a country’s constitution or political settlement must contain sufficient safeguards to prevent or arrest the rise of a potential tyrant, or simply of a less than decent or competent leader. This is not the case in the U.S. and no longer the case in the U.K. . . .

I find the entire piece timely, indeed, alarmingly so, and commend it to your attention.

Can you spot the one that’s different?

Via PoliticalProf.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s David Mills argues that words matter and that using words loosely contributes to dis coarse discourse. Here’s a tiny bit of his article:

That’s one very big problem with our political speech. Too many people destroy words in a particularly effective way: by giving people a reason to reject speech they don’t want to hear.

One of those words used all the time is “extremist” for someone you disagree with. (Also related words like leftist, rightwing, woke, fascist.) If you successfully label someone an extremist, no one has to listen to him or take seriously anything he has to say. Everyone should act as if he didn’t exist.

I think that a couple of times he tiptoes just a wee bit into the quagmire of what Driftglass refers to as “both-siderism,” but his article is well-worth the few minutes it will take you to read it.

Via Job’s Anger.

Does this remind you of anyone in the news?

Read the news report that Farron discusses.

Michael in Norfolk points out that history matters.

For some fool reason, this reminds me of someone.

Via Juanita Jean.

Or you can read the transcript.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Will Bunch argues forcefully that the press coverage of the “race” for the Republican presidential nomination is missing–or willfully ignoring–what’s really at stake. Here’s a bit (emphasis added):

It was a remarkable night of imagery over substance, yet there was little discussion of why this accused felon (you know who–ed.) was getting a phalanx of dozens of motorcycle cops, comprising police who are drawn to Trump’s authoritarian bluster like moths to the light. Trump’s glowering mug shot instantly became the most talked about picture in American history — yet not one pundit was able to explain why tens of millions of everyday voters are so eager to return to the White House this man who attempted a coup on Jan. 6, 2021, or why his poll numbers rise with each indictment. I guess the 20th-century author and socialist Upton Sinclair really nailed it when he wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Gene Collier takes a look at the tactics being employed by Donald Trump’s attorneys. Here’s a tiny bit from his article:

. . . Lauro recognized the only option available to him within the battered lawyers’ playbook: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.

His heated argument boiled down essentially to this: Your honor, my client has committed so many crimes related to these indictments that we couldn’t be expected to so much as get our arms around the depths of his depravity for at least two years.