Who Were the Sea Peoples?

Michael Oakeshott sometimes referred to the rationalist attitude to politics as "politics as the crow flies." As I understand his meaning here, he is criticizing the notion that, if in political life we detect some problem, we must immediately enact the first legislation that comes to mind that seems to correct the problem. The flaw in this approach is that it ignores the complexity and inter-connectedness of social life. The direct fix for problem A may easily create problems B and C, and they may be worse than problem A. Police personnel being drawn from the neighborhood in which they are to serve can create problems, since they may tend to favor their friends or relatives from the neighborhood. And police may not want to live in a troubled city. So states have moved to strike down residency laws , and some cities, like New York, forbid officers from serving in the precinct where they live.* But such moves may solve one problem at the expense of creating even worse ...

In the comments on this post , Keshav worries that anti-utopianism may lead to complacency: isn't it a good thing, he wonders, to strive for an ideal, even if one knows one will never achieve it? Good question. I will try to indicate when I think striving toward an ideal is fine and when it is dangerous. Let us move away from politics, to take the emotional charge off of the topic, and consider basketball (which appears to be coming another major theme of this blog). A basketball shooter should clearly have the goal of making every single shot, even though he knows he will inevitably sometimes miss. But the player slips over into utopianism if he takes this not as an unachievable ideal by which to orient his practice, but as a realistic goal which implies that he should "never rest" until he achieves it. In the latter case, he may decide to increase his time practicing shooting continually so long as he is not hitting 100% of his shots. That approach will prove destructiv...

I recall talking to a teacher about the nightmare of "no child left behind," teaching to the standardized test, and so on. "Well, I said, we really should return to local control of the schools: the higher levels of government should only be involved to even out funding." My interlocutor was aghast: "No, that would be awful!" "Why?" "Well, then different localities can teach non-standard material." Because the workable solution of local control of schools would not eliminate every possible problem , he was willing to embrace a completely unworkable solution that held out the promise of perfection. I think this problem is pervasive in our culture, and extremely damaging. Think about our recent health care legislation: I am in favor of helping poorer people get the health care they need. So, what about giving every person who makes under... $50,000? $80,000?... a government-funded voucher to buy health insurance? The bill cou...

Previously I sought a label for my political views: people seem to like labels. Perhaps a good one would be that I am a "classical republican": I think the best constitution is a mixed one, that balances the monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements, and checks the parochial tendency of localism while also checking the totalitarian tendencies of centralization. Often, it is perfectionism, or "politics as the crow flies," as Michael Oakeshott liked to put it, that is the greatest enemy of republicanism. It is often apparent that some immediate good can be achieved by disrupting the republican balance. Perhaps if only the president could simply unilaterally impose some virtuous policy, or the federal government ignore state's rights, we can achieve some true political good faster than otherwise imaginable. The Gracchi brothers threw Roman republican institutions into turmoil by trying to short-circuit them to achieve admirable policy aims in terms of l...