Back When Politics Was Not So Divisive
1798: "In the House Vermont Republic Matthew Lyon responded to an insult he had received from Connecticut Federalist Roger Griswold by spitting in his face. A few days later Griswold clobbered Lyon with a cane." -- Madison and Jefferson, p. 328
Want politics that is not bitter and divisive? Get a hereditary aristocracy. (Even that is not a guarantee, but it helps.)
Want politics that is not bitter and divisive? Get a hereditary aristocracy. (Even that is not a guarantee, but it helps.)
Plantagenets.
ReplyDeleteBlood platelets.
DeleteAre we playing free association, Ken?
I'm questioning your claim Gene, with the closest example at hand. If you look at the history of England or Italy say, or Rome, or the Sultanate, or Byzantium, or Parthia, it's hard to buy the argument that hereditary aristocracy is less bitter and divisive.
ReplyDeleteBut if your point is that our politics now -- aside from a segmanet of the chattering class -- is less divisive than ever I agree.
"If you look at the history of England or Italy say, or Rome, or the Sultanate, or Byzantium, or Parthia, it's hard to buy the argument that hereditary aristocracy is less bitter and divisive."
DeleteNo it is not. And citing one example is no evidence at all, since I wrote aristocracy "is not a guarantee."
In general, aristocracies have periods of divisiveness followed by periods of calm. Someone with a superficial knowledge of history is, of course, going to only see the periods of divisiveness, because those are what the History Channel features.
Democracy, in general, is all divisiveness all the time. One may still prefer it, but not on the grounds of internal calm!
Ken, your tactic of, "let me visit other people's blogs and act like a jerk, then, when they finally lose their temper, whine about how mean they are," is not going to fly here. I already have my own allowed troll.
ReplyDelete