User Posts : Bakersfield.com

Power, Tyranny and America’s Future

    Power, like love, can be used for constructive or destructive ends. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill used power, under very trying circumstances, to achieve constructive ends. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot use power to achieve destructive, evil ends. America today is experiencing very serious economic conditions; like a ship at sea struggling for survival amidst a treacherous storm. In times of pending calamity citizens look to political leaders to solve the problems they were elected, or since they are paid by taxpayers let’s say hired, to solve.
    However, to actually understand what political leaders really are and to understand the rationale of their objectives, it is necessary to have an in-depth understand of the nature of power. That is, an understanding of how it is used and to what purpose it will be channeled by those who possess it. Our current circumstances in America are so serious that every American owes it to him or herself to quickly understand what is happening today, what are their current options, and how these options may change in the near future.
    I was thinking about America’s predicament the other day when I received an email from a distinguished American intellectual whom I highly respect and consider a friend, Dr. Jude P. Dougherty, Dean Emeritus, School of Philosophy, The Catholic University Of America in Washington D.C. He sent me a paper he had written on this important topic of power. He delivered it as a major presentation at James Madison University on April 2, 2009.
    In reading his paper, which illuminates the thoughts of one of the premier political and economic thinkers of the twentieth century, French philosopher and historian Bertrand de Jouvenal, I was struck by the many points made by Dr. Dougherty that not only help us to understand the nature of power and the seriousness of the economic mess we are in right now in America, but also how it puts in context the festering clash of political ideas concerning the economics of redistribution of personal property and other socialist ends advocated by various government leaders and interest groups during the past six months.
    De Jouvenal exposes the dangerous consequences of these ideas in his classic, enlightening books, On Power: Its Nature and the History of Its Growth, 1949, Viking Press and The Ethics of Redistribution, 1951, Cambridge University Press, and reprinted by Liberty Press, 1990. Because Dr. Dougherty distills these conceptual topics of power and economics into a relatively short paper that is easy to read and understand entitled “de Jouvenal on Power,” I think all Americans, of all persuasions, should read this excellent, insightful paper to help them understand what is happening in America today.
    Dr. Dougherty graciously consented to allow me to post his paper on my Bakersfield.com blog, Political and Philosophical Commentary. I highly recommend you read it. And, perhaps, share your thoughts in the comment section at the end of the paper on my blog, so we can begin a serious discussion that may lead us out of thedarkness that is rapidly engulfing America.          http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RichardPoirier/46812

Presidential Candidates analyzed at St. Meinrad Philosophy Conference

Unlike many presidential debate hosts, philosophers actually seek the truth wherever it may lead. The Second Annual International Society for MacIntyrean Philosophy conference was held this year in the United States, July 30 through August 3, 2008, at Saint Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana. It attracted philosophy, law and political science professors and graduate students from Europe and North America.

This year’s conference focus was Alasdair MacIntyre’s published works on “Theory, Practice, and Tradition: Human Rationality in Pursuit of the Good Life.” As a local Californian music industry financial executive, writer and philosopher invited to present a paper at the conference, I felt that all of the conference theme elements were necessarily included in any serious discussion of the impending presidential election. So I presented a rather bold paper entitled “The Presidential Candidates: Agents of Change or ‘Partners’ in maintaining the Status Quo?”

My presentation examined the societal significance of the presidential election within the context of political power in the modern liberal state. I approached this rather large topic by assessing whether philosopher MacIntyre’s observation that a primary feature of the modern liberal state is to not align itself with any specific notion of what constitutes ‘the human good’ is in fact actually representative of its practices. I did this by contrasting MacIntyre’s notion with the public statements of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.

I began the presentation by stating, “Alasdair MacIntyre famously ends After Virtue by drawing qualified parallels between the conditions shortly before the Roman Empire’s decline into the Dark Ages and conditions facing our own age in Europe and North America. One parallel is that people of good-will reach a turning point when they no longer believe that those in government possess civility and moral integrity -- virtues that communities value.

“One difference MacIntyre points out is that Rome’s adversarial barbarians were ‘waiting beyond the frontiers,’ whereas the barbarians of today ‘have been governing us for quite some time.’ This notion that we are governed by barbarians provides a new frame of reference we may use in evaluating the two major party candidates currently running for president of the United States. This paper examines five questions that may provide insight into today’s political barbarians.

“First, are those in political power maintaining a great public illusion that we have a representative government that protects and promotes the people’s interests, while their only agenda is to instead protect and promote the interests of the ruling elite? Second, are opposing political candidates actually ‘partners’ - each needing the other as a target - in framing the ideological debate to limit public discussion of vital issues, thus maintaining the status quo as MacIntyre maintains?

“Third, are elections for real? Do we have real choices in elections such as voting for ‘none of the above’ or whether we agree to be bound by laws passed in our name? Fourth, do candidates really support a neutral state, a pluralistic society and the necessary environment in which individuals can pursue the good life? Fifth, has either candidate articulated what constitutes ‘the good’? Is there any chance that, if promoted properly, such a view could reach a public consensus?”

Regardless of one’s point of view of the candidates, this paper will provide the reader with new reference points in which the judge the candidates and the nature of politics in our time. The full presentation is available on Richard Poirier’s Political and Philosophical Commentary blog on the Backersfield.com website at http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RichardPoirier/33122.

Those wishing to comment may do so in the “Leave A Comment” section at the end of the presentation paper.

Notre Dame Conference on Cultural Conflict

For the past eight years the University of Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture has been presenting annual conferences to address major issues of our time. This year's conference entitled "The Dialogue of Cultures" focused the intellectual resources of 13 prominent speakers and 130 presenters of papers over three days from Nov. 29 to Dec 1, 2007 on cultural conflict. It included discussion of sensitive issues such as the challenges of multiculturalism, incommensurable beliefs and terrorism.

Richard Poirier, a music industry financial executive, writer and philosopher, was invited to present a paper entitled "Incommensurable Beliefs Facilitate Cultural Dialogue Conflict." His presentation focused on the nature of beliefs with examples of people who justify violence based on beliefs.

Poirier explored how to possibly influence such people by understanding the standards they appeal to in justifying their acts of violence and by evaluating their motives. Thus, through understanding their standards, motives and ends we can construct arguments in dialogue that may penetrate religious and cultural barriers through real communication that affects behavior.

Prominent speakers included the Most Reverend Elias Chacour, Archbishop of Nazareth and Galilee, who as a noted peace advocate gave the keynote address on "The Role of Religion in Promoting Dialogue." Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre gave a seminal speech to a standing room only audience in his provocative response to the ideas of Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan on integration problems facing Muslims in Europe and their broader implications for modern states including America.

Jude Dougherty, Dean Emeritus of The Catholic University of America's School of Philosophy gave an insightful presentation on American politics in his paper entitled "Red States, Blue States: Cultures in Conflict." He presented the view that contemporary 'politically correct' notions of tolerance associated with multiculturalism were replacing America's founding fathers' traditional values that have historically provided Americans with their self-identity within the context of a constitutionally unified republic.

It is indeed refreshing to know that in an era in which most public debate is conducted not with a focus on solving problems, but rather with a focus of appearing to discuss problems in such a way as to not offend the sensibilities of anyone, that The Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture has convened annual conferences to seriously address openly and honestly any topic that impacts modern ethics and the cultures in which we live.

Richard Poirier's presentation on "Incommensurable Beliefs and Cultural Conflict" is available to readers on his blog and on the post below.

Poirier believes that everyone should participate in the project of understanding one another and argue against the unnecessary use of violence.