If Bernie Sanders is elected President, he will NOT raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Nor will he institute a single payer system. Didn't you learn anything from the Obama experience?
Furthermore, if Donald Trump is elected President, he will NOT deport 11 million illegal immigrants in 18 months. Nor will he stop switchboards from saying "for English, press one" or make those signs in Spanish disappear.
Guys, we are picking a President here. Not a king. Not a dictator. And definitely not any kind of a god. So try for some realistic expectations.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Reflections on Athens' Moral Panic
So, these being facts of Athens' moral panic, what are we to make of it? How widespread was the panic? How many people were victims of it? Who did the panic target? How credible is Andocides' account? Why was it so effective in curbing the panic? And what were the lasting repercussions?
How widespread was the panic?
Once again, in assessing how widespread the panic was, we remember to keep straight three separate crimes that the Athenians conflated. The first was the mutilation of the herms, an indisputably real and, by the standards of Ancient Greece, very serious crime that could only have been committed by a well-planned conspiracy. A hunt for the suspects was perfectly reasonable; the problem was not so much looking for suspects as letting suspicions run out of hand. The second was the profanation of the Mysteries, which may very well have happened, but if so had probably been going on for quite some time without any harm done. Catching the profaners of the Mysteries may or may not have been appropriate, but had nothing to do with the immediate crisis and was part of a broader crackdown on unrelated matters. The third was a supposed plot to overthrow the democracy that existed only in people's overheated imaginations and was pure moral panic in the worst sense.
As in all moral panics, there were skeptics, meaning, in this case, not skeptics that the mutilation of the herms took place, but perhaps skepticism about the other crimes, and definitely about whether the informants were reliable. Plutarch quotes a contemporary comic poet mocking the informants as a pack of liars. He also says that Diocleides claimed to have recognized the conspirators' faces by the moonlight, even though the crime took place during the new moon and adds, "Sensible men were troubled thereat, but even this did not soften the people's feeling towards the slanderous stories." It makes a good story about how far the gullible rubes were carried away, but it seems unlikely. Andocides does, indeed, report that Diocleides claimed to have recognized the conspirators by the light of the full moon, but he does not say that it was actually a new moon. And, for what it is worth, the historian Diodorus Siculus, writing over 150 years earlier, says that Diocleides was immediately discredited as a liar for this error. Most likely, then, the moon story is a later invention which Plutarch used to mock the gullible rubes.*
We do not really know the full extent of the panic among gullible rubes. What we can say for certain is that it was not limited to gullible rubes, but reached the highest level of Athenian society. Andocides reports that when Diocleides told his story to the Council and denounced two members of the Council then present, Peisander called for suspending the usual ban on the torture of citizens and the rest of the Council "broke into shouts of approval." Clearly, then, panic had gripped the Council no less than the general public.
How many people were victims of the panic?
Andocides says that Athenians "stood in such fear of one another that you ceased going abroad even into the Agora, because you each expected arrest" and that
Clearly the reaction extended beyond real or imagined vandals of the herms to a general crackdown on irreligion. At a minimum, the accused profaners of the Mysteries were victims of this general crackdown. Andocides does not mention any others, but the net may have extended beyond the victims he mentions. At least, Aristophanes' play The Birds, performed about six months after these events, mentions Diagoras of Melos being in exile, possibly for mocking the Mysteries, and a one talent price on his head, as well as a talent reward on the heads of long-dead tyrants. Diagoras was a notorious atheist; the price on his head was presumably part of the general crackdown on irreligion. Perhaps he was among the unnamed persons denounced by the slave Lydus for mocking the mysteries. Or there may have been a broader crackdown. Or, some people suggest, Diagoras may have gone into exile earlier because he was a Melian, either because the Athenians feared the people they had wronged and drove him out, or because he chose exile, not wanting to live among the people who had destroyed his city and killed or enslaved his kin. The price on the head of dead tyrants presumably refers to panic over imaginary plots to overthrow the democracy. But ultimately we do not have anything concrete beyond Andocides.
Who did the panic target?
Typically moral panics target particular groups who are perceived as threats. Often, the groups are ethnic minorities or marginalized groups, i.e., they kick down. But moral panics can be directed at the powerful as well. Victorian panics over forced prostitution often told lurid tales of innocent girls kidnapped and sold to rich lechers. McCarthyism targeted State Department employees, Hollywood bigwigs, and high-ranking members of the Truman Administration, though it ran into trouble when it took on the Army. And so forth. So clearly moral panic can punch up as well as kick down. It would be fascinating to compare these two types of moral panic, but I am not offhand aware of any such works and do not have the time or inclination to hunt for them. The question here is this particular moral panic in Athens.
There were apparently rumors blaming the Corinthians because Syracuse was a Corinthian colony. Did this lead to anti-Corinthian sentiment, attacks on Corinthian metics or visitors, anti-Corinthian riots, etc? The best we can say is that if there was any such anti-Corinthian outburst, no classical source mentions it. Obviously absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it can be hard to prove a negative and so forth. Maybe classical historians thought that any lawless attacks on mere metics and sailors was not worth mentioning. One possible piece of evidence against such an outburst may be found (once again) in The Birds. The heroes of that story transform themselves into birds and fly off to Cloud Cuckooland to form their own utopia, free of the various obnoxious categories of people back on earth. Naturally when obnoxious people hear about Cloud Cuckooland, they show up and try to corrupt it, but our heroes beat them up and send them packing. Particularly obnoxious categories include bad poets, oracle-mongers, pretentious intellectuals, bureaucrats, news casters, undutiful sons, and informers. The informer is accused of issuing summonses in far-flung parts of Athens' empire forcing the inhabitants to come all the way to Athens to defend unmeritorious lawsuits while the informers seizes their property in their absence. But (perhaps surprisingly) Aristophanes says nothing about informers at home. As for the pretentious intellectual, are heroes tell him that they are sweeping away "quacks and imposters," rather as the Spartans drive away strangers. This would seem an odd comment if Athens had recently had an outbreak of xenophobia, against Corinthians or foreigners in general.
But regardless of whether this moral panic showed any tendency to kick down, it most emphatically punched up. Slaves, metics, and women were denouncing some of Athens' most prominent participants. Diocleides' denunciation targeted some of Athens' most prominent citizens and threatened to target others as well. As we have seen, he denounced 42 people, two of whom were members of the Council. Others denounced included Andocides and his father. We know that Andocides was from an aristocratic family because he is mentioned as a candidate for archon-basileus, or king-archon. The king-archon was a priest in charge of the Mysteries and various other religious ceremonies, as well as the trial of religious crimes and murder. Although, like other Athenians officials, chosen by lot for a single one-year term, he was required to be a descendant of the old royal family. So Andocides' family was descended from the old royalty. Besides himself and his father, Andocides gives the names of eight others denounced by Diocleides, all of whom were relatives. They include Nicias' brother. So, of the 42 people denounced by Diocleides, two were members of the Council, ten were from one of the city's most aristocratic families, and one was the commanding general's brother. The others are unknown, but presumably many of them were prominent as well.
How credible is Andocides account?
Andocides is our main source on the mutilation of the herms and ensuing panic. How reliable is he? Thucydides was certainly skeptical, and classical historians have echoed his skepticism. Plutarch likewise appears skeptical and quotes comic poets of the day who shared his skepticism. Diodorus Siculus says that "not a man was able to discover a single clue to the deed." And the men Andocides accused apparently denied the charge, even after an amnesty was in place. On the other hand, we have Andocides' speech, also given with an amnesty in place, years after the event, and purported backed by credible witnesses. The Athenians of the time believed Andocides enough to inscribe the names of the men he denounced and confiscate their property. Modern historians are divided, some finding his account convincing, while other have considered it remarkably convenient that most of the men he denounced were already either dead or in exile, and that the four others he named were all at large and poised for flight. Ultimately, our best answer can only be, Andocides gave the best account either we or his contemporaries had. Compare it to skeptical historians and decide for yourself.
Why was Andocides' account so successful in curbing the panic?
Thucydides may be doubtful of Andocides' account, but he has no doubt about the results. The panic stopped. Why? One reason may simply be that moral panics are transient and invariably burn themselves out. Another possible reason may be that up until then the informants had been two slaves, a metic, a woman, and a scoundrel.** Andocides was the first really reputable source. But modern historians have given another reason why his story might have carried weight.
The answer may lie in ancient Greek hetairiai, or "clubs." These "clubs" were semi-secret associations of like-minded individuals who promised to support each other in politics and in the law-courts. One might think of them as very, very embryonic political parties. In classical politics, one generally hears of "parties" used to mean vague factions or tendencies, but not organized structures like modern political parties. The hetairiai had organized structure, but no rank-and-file members. Perhaps a closer analogy might be a political caucus -- a group of like-minded politicians who meet in private and strategize together. These clubs might be democratic or aristocratic in their ideology, but members were invariably from Athens' political class.
And they were apparently small, typically no more than 25 members. This was no doubt partly to maintain cohesion, but also because besides caucusing, they met for entertainment in members' homes. Even the richest Greek houses were not large enough to accommodate any more. Some of them apparently mocked the Mysteries in these household meetings. The slaves and women of the household presumably knew what was going on but (until the panic), thought it prudent to keep quiet. Although these clubs were formally secret, presumably members of Athens' high society could see who visited whose house regularly and had a pretty good idea who belonged to which club.
This may have been the secret to how Andocides' testimony carried conviction. Consider what Andocides says his cousin Charmides told him:
What were the lasting repercussions?
No classical source says so outright, but I am inclined to think that the moral panic surrounding the destruction of the herms played a crucial role in turning much of Athens' upper classes against the democracy. Aristotle pairs off democratic and aristocratic leaders in Athens, with a marked preference for conservative politicians such as Thucydides (not the historian, but possibly a relative), Nicias, and the controversial Theramenes. Aristotle complains that since Pericles died the popular leaders (demagogues) have been a bunch of rabble-rousing scoundrels like Cleon, Cleophon, and Callicrates.*** But he neglects to mention a definite decline in aristocratic leaders after Nicias. For 90 plus years, from the re-institution of the democracy under Cleisthenes up through the time of Nicias, Athens' conservative politicians were loyal to the democracy, although they might wish more brakes on it than the city's more populist politicians. But after Nicias, Aristotle is not able to name any conservative politicians who were loyal to the democracy. The best he can come up with is Theramenes who (as we shall see) participated in its overthrow.
And a whole lot of the names on Andocides' list turn up later on among the people who turned against the democracy. Admittedly, we cannot be sure they are the same people. The Greeks properly speaking had three names. They were called, in full A, son of B of the X clan. Athens was an exception, regarding hereditary (often aristocratic) clans as incompatible with democracy, it denied clans official recognition (although they continued to exist informally) and replaced them with demes (townships). Thus an Athenian would be known in full as A, son of B of the Y deme. (As in
Alcibiades, son of Cleinias, of the deme Scambonidae). But in normal usage, the Greeks were simply referred to by their given names. Thus it can be hard to tell if the men listed by Andocides are the same ones who later overthrew the democracy, or simply had the same names. But, since names were often recycled in the same family, it seems most likely that they were at least relatives.
____________________________________________
*My opinion, just for what it is worth, is that it seems unlikely that anyone would have committed such a crime on the darkest night of the lunar month, when they would have to navigate by starlight. Then again, they might want to avoid the full moon for fear someone else might be out. And it is true that the Thebans sneaked into a strange city on a moonless night at the beginning of the war, presumably to avoid detection. (It did not go well for them).
**Given that by Diocleides' own account, his first reaction to learning of the conspiracy was to blackmail the conspirators and demand to be let in, even at the height of the panic he must have been seen as disreputable.
***He omits the outstanding democratic statesman Thrasybulus, but more on that later.
How widespread was the panic?
Once again, in assessing how widespread the panic was, we remember to keep straight three separate crimes that the Athenians conflated. The first was the mutilation of the herms, an indisputably real and, by the standards of Ancient Greece, very serious crime that could only have been committed by a well-planned conspiracy. A hunt for the suspects was perfectly reasonable; the problem was not so much looking for suspects as letting suspicions run out of hand. The second was the profanation of the Mysteries, which may very well have happened, but if so had probably been going on for quite some time without any harm done. Catching the profaners of the Mysteries may or may not have been appropriate, but had nothing to do with the immediate crisis and was part of a broader crackdown on unrelated matters. The third was a supposed plot to overthrow the democracy that existed only in people's overheated imaginations and was pure moral panic in the worst sense.
As in all moral panics, there were skeptics, meaning, in this case, not skeptics that the mutilation of the herms took place, but perhaps skepticism about the other crimes, and definitely about whether the informants were reliable. Plutarch quotes a contemporary comic poet mocking the informants as a pack of liars. He also says that Diocleides claimed to have recognized the conspirators' faces by the moonlight, even though the crime took place during the new moon and adds, "Sensible men were troubled thereat, but even this did not soften the people's feeling towards the slanderous stories." It makes a good story about how far the gullible rubes were carried away, but it seems unlikely. Andocides does, indeed, report that Diocleides claimed to have recognized the conspirators by the light of the full moon, but he does not say that it was actually a new moon. And, for what it is worth, the historian Diodorus Siculus, writing over 150 years earlier, says that Diocleides was immediately discredited as a liar for this error. Most likely, then, the moon story is a later invention which Plutarch used to mock the gullible rubes.*
We do not really know the full extent of the panic among gullible rubes. What we can say for certain is that it was not limited to gullible rubes, but reached the highest level of Athenian society. Andocides reports that when Diocleides told his story to the Council and denounced two members of the Council then present, Peisander called for suspending the usual ban on the torture of citizens and the rest of the Council "broke into shouts of approval." Clearly, then, panic had gripped the Council no less than the general public.
How many people were victims of the panic?
Andocides says that Athenians "stood in such fear of one another that you ceased going abroad even into the Agora, because you each expected arrest" and that
Athens reached such a state that the lowering of the flag, by the Herald, when summonig a meeting of the Council, was quite as much a signal for the citizens to hurry from the Agora, each in terror of arrest, as it was for the Council to proceed to the Council-chamber.Getting to specifics, Andocides appears to report one man executed for profaning the mysteries, an undetermined number, more than one and less than eighteen (he later implies about equal numbers killed and fled), executed for mutilating the herms, probably two hostages killed when the men they stood surety for defected, and Diocleides executed for giving false testimony. (Total executed, somewhere between six and 21, probably around thirteen). He also reports forty men arrested and an undetermined but probably similar number who fled the country for their lives. My first (rather shameful) thought is that it does not seem like all that extensive a reign of terror by modern standards. On the other hand, it may not be the full scope of what was going on. Diocleides claimed to have seen about 300 conspirators, although he named only 42 of them. There was serious talk of torturing the suspects to make them reveal the names of their accomplices. The whole city was under arms. Andocides also speaks of allowing 300 citizens to perish if he did not reveal the names of the conspirators. But this did not necessarily mean that all 300 had been arrested, only that so many might be arrested.
Clearly the reaction extended beyond real or imagined vandals of the herms to a general crackdown on irreligion. At a minimum, the accused profaners of the Mysteries were victims of this general crackdown. Andocides does not mention any others, but the net may have extended beyond the victims he mentions. At least, Aristophanes' play The Birds, performed about six months after these events, mentions Diagoras of Melos being in exile, possibly for mocking the Mysteries, and a one talent price on his head, as well as a talent reward on the heads of long-dead tyrants. Diagoras was a notorious atheist; the price on his head was presumably part of the general crackdown on irreligion. Perhaps he was among the unnamed persons denounced by the slave Lydus for mocking the mysteries. Or there may have been a broader crackdown. Or, some people suggest, Diagoras may have gone into exile earlier because he was a Melian, either because the Athenians feared the people they had wronged and drove him out, or because he chose exile, not wanting to live among the people who had destroyed his city and killed or enslaved his kin. The price on the head of dead tyrants presumably refers to panic over imaginary plots to overthrow the democracy. But ultimately we do not have anything concrete beyond Andocides.
Who did the panic target?
Typically moral panics target particular groups who are perceived as threats. Often, the groups are ethnic minorities or marginalized groups, i.e., they kick down. But moral panics can be directed at the powerful as well. Victorian panics over forced prostitution often told lurid tales of innocent girls kidnapped and sold to rich lechers. McCarthyism targeted State Department employees, Hollywood bigwigs, and high-ranking members of the Truman Administration, though it ran into trouble when it took on the Army. And so forth. So clearly moral panic can punch up as well as kick down. It would be fascinating to compare these two types of moral panic, but I am not offhand aware of any such works and do not have the time or inclination to hunt for them. The question here is this particular moral panic in Athens.
There were apparently rumors blaming the Corinthians because Syracuse was a Corinthian colony. Did this lead to anti-Corinthian sentiment, attacks on Corinthian metics or visitors, anti-Corinthian riots, etc? The best we can say is that if there was any such anti-Corinthian outburst, no classical source mentions it. Obviously absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it can be hard to prove a negative and so forth. Maybe classical historians thought that any lawless attacks on mere metics and sailors was not worth mentioning. One possible piece of evidence against such an outburst may be found (once again) in The Birds. The heroes of that story transform themselves into birds and fly off to Cloud Cuckooland to form their own utopia, free of the various obnoxious categories of people back on earth. Naturally when obnoxious people hear about Cloud Cuckooland, they show up and try to corrupt it, but our heroes beat them up and send them packing. Particularly obnoxious categories include bad poets, oracle-mongers, pretentious intellectuals, bureaucrats, news casters, undutiful sons, and informers. The informer is accused of issuing summonses in far-flung parts of Athens' empire forcing the inhabitants to come all the way to Athens to defend unmeritorious lawsuits while the informers seizes their property in their absence. But (perhaps surprisingly) Aristophanes says nothing about informers at home. As for the pretentious intellectual, are heroes tell him that they are sweeping away "quacks and imposters," rather as the Spartans drive away strangers. This would seem an odd comment if Athens had recently had an outbreak of xenophobia, against Corinthians or foreigners in general.
But regardless of whether this moral panic showed any tendency to kick down, it most emphatically punched up. Slaves, metics, and women were denouncing some of Athens' most prominent participants. Diocleides' denunciation targeted some of Athens' most prominent citizens and threatened to target others as well. As we have seen, he denounced 42 people, two of whom were members of the Council. Others denounced included Andocides and his father. We know that Andocides was from an aristocratic family because he is mentioned as a candidate for archon-basileus, or king-archon. The king-archon was a priest in charge of the Mysteries and various other religious ceremonies, as well as the trial of religious crimes and murder. Although, like other Athenians officials, chosen by lot for a single one-year term, he was required to be a descendant of the old royal family. So Andocides' family was descended from the old royalty. Besides himself and his father, Andocides gives the names of eight others denounced by Diocleides, all of whom were relatives. They include Nicias' brother. So, of the 42 people denounced by Diocleides, two were members of the Council, ten were from one of the city's most aristocratic families, and one was the commanding general's brother. The others are unknown, but presumably many of them were prominent as well.
How credible is Andocides account?
Andocides is our main source on the mutilation of the herms and ensuing panic. How reliable is he? Thucydides was certainly skeptical, and classical historians have echoed his skepticism. Plutarch likewise appears skeptical and quotes comic poets of the day who shared his skepticism. Diodorus Siculus says that "not a man was able to discover a single clue to the deed." And the men Andocides accused apparently denied the charge, even after an amnesty was in place. On the other hand, we have Andocides' speech, also given with an amnesty in place, years after the event, and purported backed by credible witnesses. The Athenians of the time believed Andocides enough to inscribe the names of the men he denounced and confiscate their property. Modern historians are divided, some finding his account convincing, while other have considered it remarkably convenient that most of the men he denounced were already either dead or in exile, and that the four others he named were all at large and poised for flight. Ultimately, our best answer can only be, Andocides gave the best account either we or his contemporaries had. Compare it to skeptical historians and decide for yourself.
Why was Andocides' account so successful in curbing the panic?
Thucydides may be doubtful of Andocides' account, but he has no doubt about the results. The panic stopped. Why? One reason may simply be that moral panics are transient and invariably burn themselves out. Another possible reason may be that up until then the informants had been two slaves, a metic, a woman, and a scoundrel.** Andocides was the first really reputable source. But modern historians have given another reason why his story might have carried weight.
The answer may lie in ancient Greek hetairiai, or "clubs." These "clubs" were semi-secret associations of like-minded individuals who promised to support each other in politics and in the law-courts. One might think of them as very, very embryonic political parties. In classical politics, one generally hears of "parties" used to mean vague factions or tendencies, but not organized structures like modern political parties. The hetairiai had organized structure, but no rank-and-file members. Perhaps a closer analogy might be a political caucus -- a group of like-minded politicians who meet in private and strategize together. These clubs might be democratic or aristocratic in their ideology, but members were invariably from Athens' political class.
And they were apparently small, typically no more than 25 members. This was no doubt partly to maintain cohesion, but also because besides caucusing, they met for entertainment in members' homes. Even the richest Greek houses were not large enough to accommodate any more. Some of them apparently mocked the Mysteries in these household meetings. The slaves and women of the household presumably knew what was going on but (until the panic), thought it prudent to keep quiet. Although these clubs were formally secret, presumably members of Athens' high society could see who visited whose house regularly and had a pretty good idea who belonged to which club.
This may have been the secret to how Andocides' testimony carried conviction. Consider what Andocides says his cousin Charmides told him:
Your friends and associates outside the family have all been subjected to the charges which are now to prove our own undoing: and half of them have been put to death,—while the other half have admitted their guilt by going into exile.This may mean that, while the names denounced by Teucrus might seem random to your average Athenians (including comic poets), were recognized by Charmides as members of Andocides' "club," and that this, along with the undamaged statue in front of his house, led Charmides to suspect his cousin had inside knowledge. The others joined in the plea. Apparently all of Andocides' relatives recognized his association with the men Teucrus had denounced. If this is so, then Andocides' denunciation would have had meaning to Athens' political class that would not be apparent to the general public -- or, apparently to Thucydides, who had been in exile for several years and was presumably not up on the latest news and gossip. It would point to one particular club as responsible for the outrage and thus clearly set the bounds of the conspiracy. And if Andocides denouncing his club reassured Athens' political class, perhaps they had some way of conveying this reassurance to the broader public.
What were the lasting repercussions?
No classical source says so outright, but I am inclined to think that the moral panic surrounding the destruction of the herms played a crucial role in turning much of Athens' upper classes against the democracy. Aristotle pairs off democratic and aristocratic leaders in Athens, with a marked preference for conservative politicians such as Thucydides (not the historian, but possibly a relative), Nicias, and the controversial Theramenes. Aristotle complains that since Pericles died the popular leaders (demagogues) have been a bunch of rabble-rousing scoundrels like Cleon, Cleophon, and Callicrates.*** But he neglects to mention a definite decline in aristocratic leaders after Nicias. For 90 plus years, from the re-institution of the democracy under Cleisthenes up through the time of Nicias, Athens' conservative politicians were loyal to the democracy, although they might wish more brakes on it than the city's more populist politicians. But after Nicias, Aristotle is not able to name any conservative politicians who were loyal to the democracy. The best he can come up with is Theramenes who (as we shall see) participated in its overthrow.
And a whole lot of the names on Andocides' list turn up later on among the people who turned against the democracy. Admittedly, we cannot be sure they are the same people. The Greeks properly speaking had three names. They were called, in full A, son of B of the X clan. Athens was an exception, regarding hereditary (often aristocratic) clans as incompatible with democracy, it denied clans official recognition (although they continued to exist informally) and replaced them with demes (townships). Thus an Athenian would be known in full as A, son of B of the Y deme. (As in
Alcibiades, son of Cleinias, of the deme Scambonidae). But in normal usage, the Greeks were simply referred to by their given names. Thus it can be hard to tell if the men listed by Andocides are the same ones who later overthrew the democracy, or simply had the same names. But, since names were often recycled in the same family, it seems most likely that they were at least relatives.
Thus I can only assume that being targets of a moral panic; denounced on the words of slaves, metics, women and scoundrels; arrested on false charges; and threatened with torture and death; or at least seeing these things happen to relatives, was enough to turn many of Athens' leading citizens against the democracy. Fearing a non-existent plot to overthrow the democracy, the people of Athens may have set their city up for exactly that.
____________________________________________
*My opinion, just for what it is worth, is that it seems unlikely that anyone would have committed such a crime on the darkest night of the lunar month, when they would have to navigate by starlight. Then again, they might want to avoid the full moon for fear someone else might be out. And it is true that the Thebans sneaked into a strange city on a moonless night at the beginning of the war, presumably to avoid detection. (It did not go well for them).
**Given that by Diocleides' own account, his first reaction to learning of the conspiracy was to blackmail the conspirators and demand to be let in, even at the height of the panic he must have been seen as disreputable.
***He omits the outstanding democratic statesman Thrasybulus, but more on that later.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
A Classic Moral Panic Grips Athens
 |
| A herm |
The offenders were not known, but great rewards were publicly offered for their detection, and a decree was passed that any one, whether citizen, stranger, or slave, might without fear of punishment disclose this or any other profanation of which he was cognisant. The Athenians took the matter greatly to heart—it seemed to them ominous of the fate of the expedition; and they ascribed it to conspirators who wanted to effect a revolution and to overthrow the democracy. Certain metics and servants gave information, not indeed about the Hermae, but about the mutilation of other statues which had shortly before been perpetrated by some young men in a drunken frolic: they also said that the mysteries were repeatedly profaned by the celebration of them in private houses, and of this impiety they accused, among others, Alcibiades.
 |
| Another herm |
Alcibiades demanded to be tried before setting sail, but his enemies, fearing that he would be acquitted, allowed him to sail, planning to recall him after more hostility was stirred up. The expedition set forth in great splendor. But the launching of the expedition did not stop the general panic. Thucydides describes events in his absence:
[D]ay by day the movement became more furious and the number of arrests increased. At-last one of the prisoners, who was believed to be deeply implicated, was induced by a fellow-prisoner to make a confession—whether true or false I cannot say; opinions are divided, and no one knew at the time, or to this day knows, who the offenders were. His companion argued that even if he were not guilty he ought to confess and claim a pardon; he would thus save his own life, and at the same time deliver Athens from the prevailing state of suspicion. His chance of escaping would be better if he confessed his guilt in the hope of a pardon, than if he denied it and stood his trial. So he gave evidence both against himself and others in the matter of the Hermae. The Athenians were delighted at finding out what they supposed to be the truth; they had been in despair at the thought that the conspirators against the democracy would never be known, and they immediately liberated the informer and all whom he had not denounced. The accused they brought to trial, and executed such of them as could be found. Those who had fled they condemned to death, and promised a reward to any one who would kill them. No one could say whether the sufferers were justly punished; but the beneficial effect on the city at the time was undeniable.Thucydides, it should be noted, does not name names, nor does he give an opinion whether any of the information given was true or false, although he appears deeply skeptical.
Plutarch is more forthcoming, as to both names and details. He identifies the first two informants as Diocleides and Teucer and quotes a contemporary comic poet as expressing deep skepticism about their accounts. He even claims that one of them said he was able to recognize the conspirators by the light of the full moon, when the crime actually happened during the new moon. As for the informant among the prisoners, Plutarch identifies him as the orator Andocides,* who was suspected because of his probable oligarchic sympathies and also because the herm in front of his house had been spared. He reports that Andocides was persuaded to inform by his co-prisoner, Timaeus, and that Andocides did so, throwing in a few of his own slaves to be better believed.
This is one case where we have a more detailed source -- we have the account of Andocides himself. In fact, we have three such accounts. The first, written after he was exiled over the matter, is a plea to be allowed to return. The second, written after he had returned under a general amnesty, is a prosecution speech arguing that the amnesty applies only to political and not religious offenses. The third is Andocides' defense at the same trial. Of these three speeches, the third gives by far the most details and gives us a more up-close-and-personal view of the moral panic that followed the mutilation of the herm.
According to Andocides, the first accusation was made before the Assembly by one of Alcibiades' enemies, named Pythonicus, saying that he had profaned the Eleusian Mysteries, a series of secret rituals of worship of Demeter and Persephone that only initiates were allowed to attend. Specifically, they were accused of acting out the rites in their house, in the presence of non-initiates, when the rites were supposed to be conducted only in the temple in the proper ceremony, with only initiates present. Pythonicus said that he would produce a slave who was not an initiate** but could described details of the ceremony that only initiates should know. All non-initiates were dismissed, and the slave, named Andromachus, entered and described details of the ceremonies that a non-initiate should not have known. Andromachus named ten men, three enacting the ceremony (including Alcibiades) and seven who watched. Of these, one was arrested and executed; the others except for Alcibiades fled the country. That a non-initiate was able to give details of the Mysteries that initiates recognized as accurate suggests that someone had been making improper disclosures. But it shed no light whatever on the vandalism of the herms.
The next informant was Teucer/Teucrus, a metic who had withdrawn to Megara and returned to Athens only under a grant of immunity. (This is the same Teucer that Plutarch quotes the comic poet as treating with such skepticism). Teucer denounced twelve men, including himself, though not Alcibiades, as having mocked the Mysteries. All the others promptly fled the country. He also denounced 18 men for vandalizing the herms. All of these either fled the country or, if they remained, were arrested and executed. (Andocides does not specify how many were executed and how many fled). There is no need to go over the lists of names, other than to say that there was almost no overlap among the lists, and that there are some prominent names on the lists, although we do not know if they are actually prominent individuals or simply others with the same names.
Two others came forward about the Mysteries. Agariste, wife of Alcmaeonides, denounced Alcibiades and two others for holding a mock-ceremony in a private household. The other two fled. Lydus the slave denounced others, including Andocides' father. Andocides does not give the list here, but says that some of these fled while his father stayed only because Andocides and others begged him. A member of the Council apparently called for a trial in an irregular manner and was defeated. Clearly, Andocides is accusing Lydus of being a liar; it is less clear what he thinks of the others, although he seems to imply that they were of declining accuracy. He also reports that a body of initiates into the Mysteries were asked to determine who was most reliable in order to decide how to divide the reward money. They ended up awarding 10,000 to Andromachus (the first informer) and 1,000 to Teucrus (the second). Certainly by the time they reached Lydus' denunciation the moral panic was running out of hand, proper procedures had been forgotten, and hysteria reigned.
Things only got worse. Perhaps the moral panic over the Mysteries may have begun to abate, but panic over the herms reigned full force. Two democratic, or even demagogic politicians, Peisander and Charicles,*** insisted that there was a larger conspiracy afoot, responsible for mutilating the herms and plotting to overthrow the democracy. Situations like these are made to order for scoundrels, and one named Diocleides came forward. Diocleides said that he was out by the full moon to collect rent for one of his slaves he had rented to the mines when he saw a gathering of some 300 men and recognized many of their faces by moonlight. When he learned of the mutilations the next day, he realized what they had been up to. By Diocleides' own account, his immediate response was to blackmail the conspirators, demanding money and a place in their conspiracy. (This implies a plot to overthrow the democracy, and that he was demanding to be included). When they failed to pay, Diocleides went to the Council and gave then 42 names, including two members of the Council. Peisander called for a suspension of the law banning torture of a citizen (under Athenian law, a citizen could not be tortured, a metic might or might not be, and a slave could not testify unless under torture). When the rest of the Council endorsed the proposal, the two accused members took sanctuary and agreed to stand trial under the usual procedure. They were allowed to leave if they provided hostages. Once this was done, they promptly fled to the enemy and left their hostages to their fate.
The other accused were arrested, presumably to prevent any more defections, and the city placed under martial law. The arrested included Andocides, his father, and many relatives, as well as Nicias' own brother. Their womenfolk either joined them in prison or visited. Andocides cousin Charmides apparently knew that he had inside information and persuaded him to come forward. According to Andocides, the moving force behind the mutilation was his friend Euphiletus, on the list denounced by Teucrus. According to Andocides, Euphiletus proposed the vandalism at a drinking party. Andocides talked him out of it for the time being, but later, when Andocides was out of action after he was thrown by his horse and had a broken collar bone and skull. The others proceeded, thinking that he was also taking part. According to Andocides, that was why the herm closest to his house was the only one spared.**** Andocides handed his slaves over for torture (recall that a slave could testify only under torture) to prove his alibi. He came forward and confirmed the list provided by Teucrus and added four others, all of whom were still at large but had reason to suspect they would come under suspicion soon. All four promptly fled.
Andocides then gave his account to the Council and (he says) was corroborated by witnesses. Diocleides admitted he had lied and said he was put up to it by two other men, a foreigner or metic named Amiantus one named Alcibiades and believed to be a cousin of the Alcibiades. The two promptly fled, Diocleides was executed, the prisoners were released, and the moral panic ended.
With one exception. There was still the matter of Alcibiades, who had by this time sailed and was engaged in the war in Sicily. The Athenians sent their flag ship to recall Alcibiades home to stand trial. It was always my understanding that he was recalled to face trial for the mutilation of the herms, which amounted to an invitation to an execution on false charges. In fact, according to Plutarch, the accusation was not of mutilating the herms, but of profaning the Mysteries. The accusation appears to have been based on the testimony of the slave Andromachus, which initiates found to be credible, to contain a wealth of corroborating detail, and to have been made by Thessalus, son of Cimon, a conservative and highly respectable politician. So while Alcibiades was certainly being invited home to an execution, it may at least have been on true charges. In any event, he fled and was sentenced to death in abstentia. His flight proved disastrous to Athens because he did not escape to a neutral country, but to Sparta.
Next up: Some analysis.
________________________________________________-
*The same orator, incidentally, given as the purported author of the speech blaming Alcibiades for the massacre at Melos. However, this speech is generally regarded as spurious.
**There does not appear to have been any bar to slaves being initiated. The Mysteries appear to have been open to anyone, male or female, slave or free who spoke Greek and was not a murderer. This particular slave just happened not to have been an initiate.
***Keep an eye on these men. We will be seeing them later.
****Presumably it was this omission that led Charmides to suspect that Andocides had inside knowledge, although Andocides also implies that his association with the men already denounced was fairly well-known.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Athens, Sicily, and the Mutilated Herms: The Downward Spiral Begins
The conservative general Nicias warned that Athens' current empire was still rebellious, and that any attempt to conquer Sicily ran the risks of imperial overreach. Unsurprisingly, Alcibiades was the most eager to go to war. (It is at this point that Thucydides comments that the Athenians' unwillingness to trust Alcibiades despite his competence as a commander was the city's undoing). This meant siding with Sicily's non-Greek inhabitants against fellow Greeks, which apparently made many people uneasy, because he felt the need to defend it. Alcibiades was so persuasive that Nicias saw his position as hopeless and tried to persuade the Athenians to drop the project by giving an exaggerated estimate of the forces needed. Like some many attempts at "11 dimensional chess," this one backfired and mostly succeeded in convincing the Athenians that so large a force would be invincible. They proceeded to raise it, both in Athens and from allies.
Plutarch reports a great many unfavorable omens, while Thucydides says that the people believed any number of "soothsayers and prophets" who promised success. Most likely there were any number of contradictory omens, good and bad. People paid attention to the good omens ahead of the expedition and the bad ones in retrospect. But the one alarming event that no one could ignore was the mutilation of the herms.
|
| A herm |
So what can we say with any confidence about this crime? First of all, it was not the figment of anyone's imagination; it actually happened. The mutilated statues throughout the city bore witness to it. Second, it was not a random act or a drunken party that got badly out of hand. Mutilation of all the statutes throughout the city would call for a conspiracy large enough and with enough advance planning to vandalize a considerable number of statues over a considerable area. Third, whoever did it was almost certainly an opponent of the expedition. At best, they were trying to scare Athens into calling it off. At worst, they may have been trying to bring misfortune upon it. Fourth, there were rumors that Corinthians may have done it to block the expedition because Syracuse was a Corinthian colony. And certainly it is possible that foreigners may have been involved. But it seems most likely that the operational end was carried out by people who knew their way around Athens in the dark and knew exactly were all the statues were located, in other words, by citizens or at least permanent residents. Fifth and most controversially, it seems most likely that the offenders were someone from aristocratic, intellectual, or philosophical circles who had become irreligious and therefore did not fear the wrath of the gods for defacing their images! Finally, we should be able to rule out at least one suspect. Alcibiades, as prime mover behind the expedition, is that last person one would expect to do anything to undermine it.
 |
| Hermes |
_______________________________________________
*So how were they vandalized? Thucydides says their "faces" were smashed. My mother, reading this, was rather disappointed, since it was always her understanding that the phalluses were knocked off. An admirer of Thucydides, she was quite confident that he would never use a euphemism. "The translator might," my father said. Well, researching for this blog, I finally got the answer from a modern historian. Thucydides does, indeed, say faces. As for reports that it was the phalluses, this comes from Aristophanes' Lysistrata, in which the sex-starved men show off how stiff and swollen their penises are -- until the chorus leader tells them to cover up before whoever mutilated the herms sees them! So, either Thucydides used a euphemism, or Aristophanes was not going to let accuracy stand in the way of a dirty joke. Take your pick.
**Not one of the first actual moral panics. Presumably the phenomenon itself is much older. But this may be the earliest description of one, although I stand willing to be corrected.
Athens' Worst Atrocities at Melos and Scione
During the Vietnam War, Noam Chomsky liked making the point that just because the US was a democracy and respected (for the most part) the rights of its own citizens did not mean that it had any regards for the people of other countries. So it was at the time; so it has proven yet again in Iraq. Nor is this new. Chomsky had many examples of atrocities committed by democratic governments that respected the rights of their own citizens from the British Empire all the way back to Ancient Athens. Which brings us to the worst atrocities of the war, the massacres at Scione and Melos. Neither played any direct role in the city's downfall, yet they stand as indelible blemishes on Athens' record, as the city itself was to acknowledge.
In the midst of his description of the Argive war, Thucydides tosses off a single sentence, saying that the Athenians captured Scione, killed all the men, sold the women and children as slaves, and turned the land over to the Plataeans. It is not clear who these women and children were, since Thucydides previously reported that the Spartans had evacuated the non-combatants from Scione. One possibility is that the situation was similar to that in Plataea, where Thucydides first says that the Athenians evacuated all the non-combatants but later clarifies that a few women remained in support roles and were sold as slaves when the city fell. This may also have been the case in Scione. The other, horrifying, possibility, is that the peace agreement, besides giving the Spartans safe passage from Scione and leaving that city to Athens despite the decree of extirpation against it, also required the return of evacuees. Nor is it clear why Thucydides passed over such a horrible act in a single sentence. Presumably he believed that, having made clear that the people of Scione did not know there was a truce in force when they revolted, that Athens could easily have been awarded the city by arbitration, and that the vile Cleon was responsible for the decree of extirpation, believed that nothing further need be said.
And then there is the matter of Melos. While Scione has been largely forgotten, Melos stands with My Lai as an example of the horrors democracy is capable of committing. Melos was an island, a Spartan colony, but a neutral and of no strategic significance. The Athenians nonetheless demanded, on penalty of extirpation, that Melos pay tribute and join the alliance. When the Melians refused, the Athenians laid siege, surrounded the city, cut off its food supply, and starved it into submission. Thucydides tantalizingly speaks of some treachery within. Perhaps the Melians hoped, like the people of Mytilene, to be spared if they sought the safety of surrender. If so, it was a futile hope. The Athenians massacred all the men and sold the women and children as slaves. So why does the atrocity at Melos live on in infamy to this day, while Scione is forgotten? Partly, perhaps, because in Scione the Athenians had as least the minimal excuse that the city had revolted during a truce (even if they didn't know about the truce), while Melos was a neutral that gave no excuse whatever. Partly, perhaps, because the Spartans had (apparently) evacuated most of the non-combatants, leaving only a few women to be enslaved (probably already slaves). But mostly it is presumably because of the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides' horrifying account of the negotiations that took place between the parties before the siege.
According to Thucydides, the Melian Council refused to allow the Athenian ambassadors to address the Assembly, fearing that it would be intimidated. In their private negotiations, the Athenians made no pretense that there was any justice in their demands. They were strong enough to destroy Melos; Melos should therefore capitulate; that was all. The Melians replied that everyone benefits from having certain standards in war of how the defeated will be treated, since everyone risks being defeated some time. They offered to be neutral. The Athenians said that to allow a small island to be neutral might be taken as weakness, while to destroy it was certain proof of strength. The Melians suggested that the Spartans might come to their aid, but the Athenians warned that in great power rivalry, the great powers tend to treat small countries as expendable. The Melians said that Sparta would have to come to their rescue or lose all credibility with its allies. The Athenians replied that whatever their intentions, the Spartans lacked the naval power to rescue an island. Nonetheless, the Melians would not yield, and the siege and massacre ensued.
Historians has since debated whether the dialogue actually took place as Thucydides says.* The dispute whether anyone could really have made such ruthlessly amoral pronouncements as the Athenians are portrayed as making. My only answer can be, what difference does it make what was said? No one disputes what was done. What difference can it possibly make what mere words surrounded it? Some have argued that the massacre at Melos was not a unique atrocity,** but that the Athenians were unique in making no attempt to rationalize it, in acknowledging that they were wrong and proceeding anyhow. To this I can only say, look at Plataea. Granted, the destruction of Plataea was not quite as bad as the destruction of Melos. The Plataeans, after all, had slaughtered 180 Theban soldiers after they surrendered, while the Melians asked only to be neutral. Most of the Plataean non-combatants had been evacuated and about half the garrison escaped. But the execution of the remaining garrison for the "crime" of being on the wrong side of the war, and selling of the few remaining women is quite bad enough. And read the horrible self-righteous posturing of the Thebans as the demand the execution of the helpless Plataeans to see if it in any way mitigates the massacre that follows. Then compare it to the Melian dialogue. The Melian dialogue chills to the bone; the "Plataean dialogue" turns the stomach. Pick your poison.
Also significant -- if there was any controversy over the extirpation of Melos, Thucydides does not mention it. The main suggestion of any such controversy comes from Euripides' great tragedy, Trojan Women, about the fall of Troy, the city destroyed, all the men slaughtered, and the women and children sold as slaves. The play was written shortly after the fall of Melos and is generally seen as topical. Later accounts blame Alcibiades for passing the decree of extirpation. Plutarch says that the massacre was "chiefly due" to his support for the decree. We also have what purports to be a contemporary speech blaming him for "recommending" the massacre. That speech, incidentally, is generally regarded as spurious. It purports to be an argument that Alcibiades, rather than one of his rivals, should be ostracized (exiled). But votes on ostracism were not, in fact, proceeded by any such speeches. And the speech contains a variety of errors, including, quite probably, that the massacre took place after the vote on ostracism. In any event, the speech contains many scandalous details of Alcibiades' life to date, making the main controversy whether it was written in the early 4th Century BC and served as Plutarch's main source, or whether it was written much later and used Plutarch as its source. Most significantly, according the the speech, Alcibiades claimed one of the enslaved women of Melos for himself in the manner of a Homeric hero and had a son by her:
And then there is the matter of Melos. While Scione has been largely forgotten, Melos stands with My Lai as an example of the horrors democracy is capable of committing. Melos was an island, a Spartan colony, but a neutral and of no strategic significance. The Athenians nonetheless demanded, on penalty of extirpation, that Melos pay tribute and join the alliance. When the Melians refused, the Athenians laid siege, surrounded the city, cut off its food supply, and starved it into submission. Thucydides tantalizingly speaks of some treachery within. Perhaps the Melians hoped, like the people of Mytilene, to be spared if they sought the safety of surrender. If so, it was a futile hope. The Athenians massacred all the men and sold the women and children as slaves. So why does the atrocity at Melos live on in infamy to this day, while Scione is forgotten? Partly, perhaps, because in Scione the Athenians had as least the minimal excuse that the city had revolted during a truce (even if they didn't know about the truce), while Melos was a neutral that gave no excuse whatever. Partly, perhaps, because the Spartans had (apparently) evacuated most of the non-combatants, leaving only a few women to be enslaved (probably already slaves). But mostly it is presumably because of the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides' horrifying account of the negotiations that took place between the parties before the siege.
Historians has since debated whether the dialogue actually took place as Thucydides says.* The dispute whether anyone could really have made such ruthlessly amoral pronouncements as the Athenians are portrayed as making. My only answer can be, what difference does it make what was said? No one disputes what was done. What difference can it possibly make what mere words surrounded it? Some have argued that the massacre at Melos was not a unique atrocity,** but that the Athenians were unique in making no attempt to rationalize it, in acknowledging that they were wrong and proceeding anyhow. To this I can only say, look at Plataea. Granted, the destruction of Plataea was not quite as bad as the destruction of Melos. The Plataeans, after all, had slaughtered 180 Theban soldiers after they surrendered, while the Melians asked only to be neutral. Most of the Plataean non-combatants had been evacuated and about half the garrison escaped. But the execution of the remaining garrison for the "crime" of being on the wrong side of the war, and selling of the few remaining women is quite bad enough. And read the horrible self-righteous posturing of the Thebans as the demand the execution of the helpless Plataeans to see if it in any way mitigates the massacre that follows. Then compare it to the Melian dialogue. The Melian dialogue chills to the bone; the "Plataean dialogue" turns the stomach. Pick your poison.
 |
| Euripides |
Alcibiades who carries his villainy to such unheard-of lengths that, after recommending that the people of Melos be sold into slavery, he purchased a woman from among the prisoners and has since had a son by her, a child whose birth was more unnatural than that of Aegisthus,*** since he is sprung from parents who are each other's deadliest enemies, and of his nearest kin the one has committed and the other has suffered the most terrible of wrongs. Indeed it would be well to make such shamelessness still plainer. He got himself a child by the very woman whom he had turned from a free citizen into a slave, whose father and kinsfolk he had put to death and whose city he had made a waste, that he might thereby make his son the deadly enemy of himself and of this city; so inevitably is the boy driven to hate both. When you are shown things of this kind on the tragic stage, you regard them with horror; but when you see them taking place in Athens, you remain unmoved—and yet you are uncertain whether the tales of tragedy are founded on the truth or spring merely from the imagination of the poets; whereas you well know that these other lawless outrages, which you accept with indifference, have occurred in fact.It seems unlikely that any Athenian would have spoken of his city in such terms only shortly after the fall of Melos! Certainly, Alcibiades took no personal part in the siege of Melos, since he was busy fighting in Argos at the time, and was probably not available to propose anything to the Assembly (though this is guesswork). While it is quite clear that Alcibiades was treacherous, unscrupulous and an extreme hawk, nothing in his career suggests that he was particularly bloodthirsty or cruel. His fighting in Argos was gentlemanly enough as (we shall see) was his leadership in the later stages of the war.
And for all these horrors, one can find a small note of encouragement here. The Classical Greeks really were more civilized than their Homeric forebears. Reading Thucydides is rather like reading the Old Testament or the Iliad in terms of the atrocities it describes. Thucydides' work, like those others, often shocks and horrifies us. The difference is that Thucydides recognized that he was describing atrocities and intended for us to be shocked. Every time someone excuses or defends a particular atrocity, it is an implied admission that it really was an atrocity. Massacres of the Melian type occurred, but they were the exception and not the rule. In the Iliad, they are warfare as usual. Enslavement of conquered people is more common, but the Homeric practice of a warrior claiming a woman whose male kinsmen he has killed is now regarded with horror and revulsion. Compare the speech above to Briseis' lament for Patroclus in the Iliad. Though Achilles killed her husband and brothers and destroyed her city, he is also her only protection and she hopes for him to marry her.
My own opinion then, is this. The massacre at Melos was the collective crime of the Athenian people. No one individual was particularly to blame; it was the decision of the voting public as a whole. Later on, as the massacre came to be generally recognized as an atrocity (perhaps in part thanks to Thucydides and Euripides), the Athenians went looking for a scapegoat and fastened on Alcibiades.
But this is a mere sidelight, important as showing Athens' worst moral failings, but not significant in the downfall of the democracy. The beginning of that unraveling will be seen in my next post.
_______________________________________________
*Particularly suspect is the following exchange:
_______________________________________________
*Particularly suspect is the following exchange:
Melians: 'Well, then, since you set aside justice and invite us to speak of expediency, in our judgment it is certainly expedient that you should respect a principle which is for the common good; that to every man when in peril a reasonable claim should be accounted a claim of right, and that any plea which he is disposed to urge, even if failing of the point a little, should help his cause. Your interest in this principle is quite as great as ours, inasmuch as you, if you fall, will incur the heaviest vengeance, and will be the most terrible example to mankind.
Athenians: The fall of our empire, if it should fall, is not an event to which we look forward with dismay; for ruling states such as Lacedaemon are not cruel to their vanquished enemies. With the Lacedaemonians, however, we are not now contending; the real danger is from our many subject states, who may of their own motion rise up and overcome their masters.
Since Athens was defeated in the end and since, after some debate, the Spartans did decide to spare the Athenians such a fate, many suspect this was an example of a prophecy after the fact.
**Melos appears to be the worst atrocity of this particular war, but by no means unique in Classical Antiquity. The Greeks famously commemorated a similar atrocity with the fall of Troy. What the Athenians did to Melos the Macedonians would to on a larger scale to Thebes, the Romans to Corinth, and, most famously, the Romans to Carthage.
***Product of a father raping his daughter.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
If the Acid Rain Legislation Had Been Passed Under a Democrat
Jonathan Chait has written a long article expressing hope that world-wide clean technologies may be replacing old, carbon-emitting technologies fast enough to keep global warming from being as destructive as it might be. One main obstacle remains -- the Republican Party. One party in the world's largest economy continues to regard global warming as against its principles and is determined to block any measure to fight it.
The main reason for the success is obvious. No one values sulfur emissions for their own sake; they are simply an accidental biproduct of making things that people do value. Limiting emissions was simply not a priority. Once industry did make cutting sulfur emissions a priority, it turned out to be cheaper and easier than anyone had expected. But then again, that was before Republicans realized that having a (federal) government meant that a Democrat could occupy the White House. Once such a travesty occurred, it became apparent that any federal initiative must be fought tooth and claw, and a whole news industry was built around stoking outrage at any federal regulation. The the cap-and-trade approach that under the Bush Administration was touted as an innovative, market-oriented approach. Under the Obama Administration, with Fox News and talk radio on the prowl, it is little short of outright Communism.
So I invite the audience to imagine how Glenn Beck and the rest might have reacted if the Bush I cap-and-trade of sulfur emissions had come out under Obama. Suddenly, it would turn out that sulfur emissions were, in fact, a valuable thing in and of themselves. In fact, it would turn out that a country's commitment to freedom could be precisely measured by its sulfur emissions. All over talk radio and Fox, people would denounce this monstrous act of tyranny and demand the right to burn as much sulfur as they pleased. The would tout its use in wine-making, fruit preservation, and even medicine to show that sulfur compounds were obviously harmless. Doubtless many "experts" would be produced to show that sulfur emissions were actually beneficial.
But Glenn Beck would go the furthest. I have no idea how sulfur emissions prior to cap-and-trade compared to emissions in Nazi Germany. If they were lower, Beck would have to content himself by mockingly saying that sulfur emissions were much higher in the 1930's and '40's and there wasn't any acid rain back then, so the whole thing is obviously a hoax. But if they were lower, the fun could really begin. Not only would Beck join with everyone else in saying that a country's commitment to liberty could be measured by its sulfur emissions, he would announce the discovery that if sulfur emissions fall below a certain level, liberty will be lost altogether. Why, look at Nazi Germany. Their emissions fell below [whatever magic level he set] and look where it led -- gas chambers! Obviously we have to keep our emissions above that level if we are to avoid a similar fate.
Program after program, he would chart our sulfur emissions, noting their ominous drop signaling our lost liberty, and showing them approaching the Nazi level as the sign that liberty would be lost altogether. As we drew closer and closer to that fatal cutoff, he would become increasingly alarmed and call on viewers to go out and start burning sulfur in their backyards to keep our emissions up. Officially, he would say that the survival of liberty depends on it. Darkly, he would hint without actually saying that if people didn't burn enough sulfur in their back yards, the Gestapo would haul them off to concentration camps. All across America, Glen Beck followers would start burning sulfur in their back yards. Needless to say, the neighbors would complain about the smell. A few would go to the authorities, who would issue citations. Then all hell would break loose. Beck would go on TV warning that the great loss of liberty had begun, than honest, liberty-loving Americans were being persecuted just for standing up for liberty. City councils all across the country would be besieged with irate Glenn Beck watchers demanding that any local anti-burning or anti-pollution ordinances make an exception for sulfur. Overwhelmed, city councils would yield, The sulfur burning campaign would grow, though not enough to stem the falling emission levels from industries. Beck would sound increasingly panicked as he appeared and warn his followers that they must endure all persecution for the sake of liberty and burn more sulfur.
Eventually, of course, the tide would turn. A lot of them would not like the smell much, either. Some would find that it irritated their lungs. Many neighbors would start displaying pictures and videos of damage to their foliage to show that sulfur burning was not a harmless fad. Someone's asthmatic daughter would have a serious reaction to the fumes, and her parents would sue. The most ardent sulfur burners would start to notice that it wasn't all that good for their foliage, either. Eventually, Beck would have to go on the air and explain that, while maintaining sulfur emission levels was vital to the preservation of liberty, that burning it was necessary to keep everyone from being hauled off to concentration camps, and that he believed the faithful should be willing to pay any price, bear any burden for the sake of freedom, he wasn't actually going so far as to ask his followers to damage their lawns. The campaign would peter out. Sulfur emissions would fall below the critical level and no one would be hauled off to concentration camps. The whole thing would be forgotten.
And then the next alarm would come up.
And so the world is racing to decarbonize before the Republican Party — as constituted in its current, delirious form — can regain power over the U.S. With the GOP as unpopular as ever, the rest of the planet has a tenuous upper hand. At some point, perhaps only a few years from now, decarbonization will have gained irreversible momentum, strengthening the economic power of the green-energy lobby and weakening the power of the fossil-fuel lobby. And maybe, eventually, the Republican Party will give up its affinity for unlimited carbon emissions, just as it is surrendering on gay marriage. In the meantime, the 2016 election threatens to ruin the new global consensus on climate change.It wasn't always like this. Back when Republicans rested in confidence that no Democrat would ever again reside in the White House, it was not beyond the pale for a Republican to favor environmental measures. The Reagan Administration ultimately came out in favor of banning chloro-fluorocarbons to protect the ozone layer. The Senior Bush Administration passed measures to cut sulfur emissions in order to combat acid rain. They prided themselves in abandoning the old liberal command-and-control approach with a cap-and-trade that allowed industry greater latitude in cutting emissions, and allowed industries that could cut emissions more cheaply to trade credits with ones that were more expensive. Some have argued whether this was actually any better than straight regulation, but either way it worked. It has been given as a classic example of a successful government endeavor.
The main reason for the success is obvious. No one values sulfur emissions for their own sake; they are simply an accidental biproduct of making things that people do value. Limiting emissions was simply not a priority. Once industry did make cutting sulfur emissions a priority, it turned out to be cheaper and easier than anyone had expected. But then again, that was before Republicans realized that having a (federal) government meant that a Democrat could occupy the White House. Once such a travesty occurred, it became apparent that any federal initiative must be fought tooth and claw, and a whole news industry was built around stoking outrage at any federal regulation. The the cap-and-trade approach that under the Bush Administration was touted as an innovative, market-oriented approach. Under the Obama Administration, with Fox News and talk radio on the prowl, it is little short of outright Communism.
So I invite the audience to imagine how Glenn Beck and the rest might have reacted if the Bush I cap-and-trade of sulfur emissions had come out under Obama. Suddenly, it would turn out that sulfur emissions were, in fact, a valuable thing in and of themselves. In fact, it would turn out that a country's commitment to freedom could be precisely measured by its sulfur emissions. All over talk radio and Fox, people would denounce this monstrous act of tyranny and demand the right to burn as much sulfur as they pleased. The would tout its use in wine-making, fruit preservation, and even medicine to show that sulfur compounds were obviously harmless. Doubtless many "experts" would be produced to show that sulfur emissions were actually beneficial.
But Glenn Beck would go the furthest. I have no idea how sulfur emissions prior to cap-and-trade compared to emissions in Nazi Germany. If they were lower, Beck would have to content himself by mockingly saying that sulfur emissions were much higher in the 1930's and '40's and there wasn't any acid rain back then, so the whole thing is obviously a hoax. But if they were lower, the fun could really begin. Not only would Beck join with everyone else in saying that a country's commitment to liberty could be measured by its sulfur emissions, he would announce the discovery that if sulfur emissions fall below a certain level, liberty will be lost altogether. Why, look at Nazi Germany. Their emissions fell below [whatever magic level he set] and look where it led -- gas chambers! Obviously we have to keep our emissions above that level if we are to avoid a similar fate.
Program after program, he would chart our sulfur emissions, noting their ominous drop signaling our lost liberty, and showing them approaching the Nazi level as the sign that liberty would be lost altogether. As we drew closer and closer to that fatal cutoff, he would become increasingly alarmed and call on viewers to go out and start burning sulfur in their backyards to keep our emissions up. Officially, he would say that the survival of liberty depends on it. Darkly, he would hint without actually saying that if people didn't burn enough sulfur in their back yards, the Gestapo would haul them off to concentration camps. All across America, Glen Beck followers would start burning sulfur in their back yards. Needless to say, the neighbors would complain about the smell. A few would go to the authorities, who would issue citations. Then all hell would break loose. Beck would go on TV warning that the great loss of liberty had begun, than honest, liberty-loving Americans were being persecuted just for standing up for liberty. City councils all across the country would be besieged with irate Glenn Beck watchers demanding that any local anti-burning or anti-pollution ordinances make an exception for sulfur. Overwhelmed, city councils would yield, The sulfur burning campaign would grow, though not enough to stem the falling emission levels from industries. Beck would sound increasingly panicked as he appeared and warn his followers that they must endure all persecution for the sake of liberty and burn more sulfur.
Eventually, of course, the tide would turn. A lot of them would not like the smell much, either. Some would find that it irritated their lungs. Many neighbors would start displaying pictures and videos of damage to their foliage to show that sulfur burning was not a harmless fad. Someone's asthmatic daughter would have a serious reaction to the fumes, and her parents would sue. The most ardent sulfur burners would start to notice that it wasn't all that good for their foliage, either. Eventually, Beck would have to go on the air and explain that, while maintaining sulfur emission levels was vital to the preservation of liberty, that burning it was necessary to keep everyone from being hauled off to concentration camps, and that he believed the faithful should be willing to pay any price, bear any burden for the sake of freedom, he wasn't actually going so far as to ask his followers to damage their lawns. The campaign would peter out. Sulfur emissions would fall below the critical level and no one would be hauled off to concentration camps. The whole thing would be forgotten.
And then the next alarm would come up.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Black Lives Matter and the Mainstream Right -- and Left
Black lives matter may have the support of libertarian/anarchists who are only disappointed that the group is not forming a private militia and preparing for an armed showdown with the police. But the reaction of the more mainstream right has been rather more hostile. Aside from accusations that they were terrorists or a hate group, the slogan, "Black lives matter" is in itself deeply offensive to many. As one critic put it, “By its very title, and certainly by its claim to exclusivity as to whose lives matter, Black Lives Matters would qualify as a racist outfit by just about any standard.” To supporters, such talk is nonsense. "Black lives matter" was never meant to say that only black lives matter, or that black lives matter more than white lives, or police lives. It means that black lives matter, too; or that black lives matter as much as white lives; that protesters have to assert that black lives matter because black lives have been systematically devalued. Black Lives Matter activists respond with hostility to the retort that "All lives matter" because it effectively denies that black lives have been devalued.
Will this mollify conservative critics of the movement? It most certainly will not. Even at its mildest reading, to say "Black lives matter" is to say that race matters. And conservatives are most emphatic on that point. Race does not matter. To suggest that anti-black racism persists in America today is tantamount to calling white Americans -- and especially white conservatives -- racist. And few things enrage white conservatives more than being called racist. And make no mistake. Black Lives Matter is not just a movement to reign in abusive police. It is a movement calling attention to the fact that black people are disproportionately victims of abusive police. A generic attempt to reign in abusive cops is all fine and good, but to ignore the racial nature of such abuse is to ignore the nature of Black Lives Matter. (This is also a sticking point to any libertarian/anarchists who may want an alliance).
Well, what about Campaign Zero, an offshoot of the movement that has a nice, non-racial name and mainstream civil libertarian program? It won't appeal to libertarian/anarchists because it accepts the legitimacy of government and police and doesn't involve armed confrontation. Will the mainstream right be reassured? They will probably be open to some of the less controversial aspects, such as body cameras, filming police, and better training in conflict resolution and de-escalation. Other parts not addressed to race the mainstream right might at least be willing to debate rationally. But my guess is that the minute the mainstream right discovers parts of the program addressed to race, all discussion will shut down and they will dismiss the whole thing as Black Lives Matter in sheep's clothing.
For instance calls to include more black people on the police force will be angrily met with accusations of hiring quotas. Or training in conflict resolution and de-escalation should not be too controversial but imagine conservative reaction to call for training in implicit bias (an accusation that all police are racist!) or training in:
There is a good deal of common sense in this, really. A seemingly non-compliant individual might actually be deaf, or speak little or no English, and police ought to be aware of this possibility and alert to the signs of it and how to handle it. Nonetheless, I can already see conservative hackles rising at the suggestion that police give "special treatment" to various favored minorities. And any talk of "LGBTQ, transgender and gender nonconforming individuals" sounds suspiciously like white liberal jargon which will alone be enough to convince many conservatives to close their ears and dismiss the whole movement as inauthentic.*
Will this mollify conservative critics of the movement? It most certainly will not. Even at its mildest reading, to say "Black lives matter" is to say that race matters. And conservatives are most emphatic on that point. Race does not matter. To suggest that anti-black racism persists in America today is tantamount to calling white Americans -- and especially white conservatives -- racist. And few things enrage white conservatives more than being called racist. And make no mistake. Black Lives Matter is not just a movement to reign in abusive police. It is a movement calling attention to the fact that black people are disproportionately victims of abusive police. A generic attempt to reign in abusive cops is all fine and good, but to ignore the racial nature of such abuse is to ignore the nature of Black Lives Matter. (This is also a sticking point to any libertarian/anarchists who may want an alliance).
Well, what about Campaign Zero, an offshoot of the movement that has a nice, non-racial name and mainstream civil libertarian program? It won't appeal to libertarian/anarchists because it accepts the legitimacy of government and police and doesn't involve armed confrontation. Will the mainstream right be reassured? They will probably be open to some of the less controversial aspects, such as body cameras, filming police, and better training in conflict resolution and de-escalation. Other parts not addressed to race the mainstream right might at least be willing to debate rationally. But my guess is that the minute the mainstream right discovers parts of the program addressed to race, all discussion will shut down and they will dismiss the whole thing as Black Lives Matter in sheep's clothing.
For instance calls to include more black people on the police force will be angrily met with accusations of hiring quotas. Or training in conflict resolution and de-escalation should not be too controversial but imagine conservative reaction to call for training in implicit bias (an accusation that all police are racist!) or training in:
- Appropriate engagement with youth
- Appropriate engagement with LGBTQ, transgender and gender nonconforming individuals
- Appropriate engagement with individuals who are english language learners
- Appropriate engagement with individuals from different religious affiliations
- Appropriate engagement with individuals who are differently abled
And what about my own side? Will Campaign Zero, offering a concrete and realistic platform against abusive police, offer white liberals (Social Justice Warriors, their critics derisively call them), flush with triumph after achieving nation-wide same sex marriage, a new cause to advocate? Will it convince my side that Black Lives Matter more than ensuring that all bakers must bake cakes for same sex weddings regardless of inclination, or that the 0.2% of the population that is transgender has access to the restroom of their choice, regardless of how much it discomfits the other 99.8%? Well, I can only go by my Facebook feed. My Facebook feed has expressed occasional concern for Black Lives matter, but I have not seen a single mention of Campaign Zero. And it seems a whole lot more concerned with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk arrested for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
_________________________________________
*I believe that failure to capitalize "english" may be a holdover from the radical Left in the 1960's or '70's. Presumably most people don't know that, but if word gets out, it will be further reason for conservatives to distrust any organization that uses it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)