Shimkus not teaching students this crap
“When I taught government and history,” Shimkus added, “by definition, what is the best form of government, the most simple, is a compassionate monarchy – a monarchy that loves and respects its citizens and … is able to make easy decisions without the weight of a bureaucracy we’d have to fund.”
Shimkus taught in a private high school before he was in Congress.
There is a reasonable argument about liberalism versus populism. In the Political Science literature, Ryker’s Liberalism versus Populism makes a case that liberalism is more realistic, and certainly Fareed Zakaria has talked about the importance of developing institutions and conditions for democracy to flourish. There may be a need for transitional arrangements before going directly to elections and certainly, as in the United States, you limit democracy to not interfering with individual rights.
However, no one in the right fucking mind says the best form of government is a , the most simple, is a compassionate monarchy.
Inherent in such systems is corruption and censorship. Even within a Constitutional Monarchy such as Great Britain’s before it became a democracy, people censored and thrown in jail without adequate due process.
Of course, even Great Britain respected Habeas Corpus.
What’s “habeus corpus”? 😉
Any system of government is bound to be near-perfect if you just handwave away abuse and corruption. Even socialism works on paper if everyone works for the greater good and no one ever abuses the system or takes more than they need.
The idea that a philosopher-king (a wise ruler) would be the best form of government in theory works on paper, too. Whatever the hell that means.
But even the Greeks who first asked the question of what is the best government recognized it impracticality because it would quickly lead to tyranny. In The Prince, the first modern political philosopher, Machiavelli, argued that it was in the interest of the Prince to not be a moral leader (my words), but he recognized that was in practical terms impossible.
I think, despite Larry’s practical modern Pol Sci perspective, some of the critiques are only showing their own ignorance of the roots of political discourse. I feel embarrassed for the ones ridiculing Shimkus. Shimkus may have spoken with Bush like precision, but yes the Philosopher-King — a wise efficient form of govt — is considered to be the best theory of the best govt. A Republic — rule of the best (which we democratically determine here) — was considered the best practical solution. And we all know what Franklin said about it.
But I think this is why it’s such a problem–he’s stopping with Aristotle or Hobbes/Locke. Political Philosophy hasn’t moved forward since then on what the best form of government is? He could have least moved on to Burke 😉
More seriously, this is the problem with much of political philosophy as a discipline. In theory and in practice aren’t terribly different. The normative cannot be separated from the positive and such arguments as Shimkus makes do exactly that. The arguments are mental masturbation.
He’s advocating that Iraq not transition and be put under a benevolent dictator as a matter of US Policy. Now, there is a defense of this–South Korea. However, he’s using Morocco and Tunisia as examples. In some ways, Morocco isn’t the worst example because it has some freedoms, but Tunisia is a horrible example of the benevolent dictator even.
And he gets the idea of less bureaucracy wrong. It isn’t more efficient because there is less bureaucracy, it’s more efficient because there aren’t two branches of government checking the Executive.
Worse, efficient at what? If the point of government is to fix market failures, and it is, then one failure of the market is to guarantee liberty from foreign and domestic threats. The ‘efficiency’ of the ‘benevolent’ dictator is the problem in itself.
There is a reason why I separate your comments from some of the others.
I don’t think necessarily he is stopping with Aristotle or other philosophers, I think he is making a point about the where the discussion begins. Like you I disagree with the idea of benevolent dictator but I’m well enough versed in both the positivist and normative traditions to understand where he is coming from.
If I were in the room with him when he said what he said, or if some other person said it, I would’ve used it as a launching point of a discussion. I’d probably steer the conversation into the comparative arena and discussed the political culture of Iraq and the difficulties of a benevolent dictator in a low trust political culture or some such.
And the idea that government exists to fix “market failures” isn’t exactly what we’re talking about here. I think some sense of establishing some form of the rule of law and property rights and just plain old public safety is the goal.
Technically, the term market failure hasn’t been around a Century yet, but government has been around for a lot longer. If I took you that literally I’d be showing my ignorance. I pretty much know what you mean and agree with, if not the term, your larger point. W should treat Shimkus’ remarks similarly — in general terms.
===And the idea that government exists to fix “market failures” isn’t exactly what we’re talking about here. I think some sense of establishing some form of the rule of law and property rights and just plain old public safety is the goal.
We’d disagree here–while the term market failure is relatively new, it describes the conditions why government is necessary. We had markets before we had a term for them.
But where I’m not buying it in relation to Shimkus is that it isn’t just some philosophical argument he mentions, he tries to claim Tunisia as an example of where such a system works great–he’s taking it a lot farther than I think either of us would as a philosophical point.
“But where I’m not buying it in relation to Shimkus is that it isn’t just some philosophical argument he mentions, he tries to claim Tunisia as an example of where such a system works great–he’s taking it a lot farther than I think either of us would as a philosophical point.”
OMG, cats and dogs are sleeping together! Yes, I think that makes sense. But I think that is a step down from what some of the others have said.
Who were the ones who edited that transitions series in the late 80’s and early 90’s? O’Donnell??? There big conclusion in Latin America was that people simply tired of killing one another and tried to find a safer way to aggregate interests. To me, that’s what would have to take place in Iraq. My moral problem with that theory is that we’d have to rely on attrition.
Maybe the Patreus’ strategy can help create that situation? Maybe not. But, I’d prefer giving that some time over putting in a Pinochet.
Here’s the URL with the comments:
http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/10049.asp
For whatever reason, there are 2 locations with this article — 1 with comments & 1 without.
Shimkus is a man who flashes his exclusive West Point education & military status to anyone in the blink of an eye. It gives the illusion that he’s somewhat competent. He’s a member of the INACTIVE Reserves, attends NO meetings at all, & an LTC of no substance with ZERO combat experience. His total education consists of an MBA with delusions of free market conservatism.
Over 3,000 people have died in the Mid-East in a fool’s quest that Shimkus happily supports. Now he talks about a compassionate monarchy like he’s well-read in international government. He should at least progress a century or 2 & acquaint himself with the 18th Century Enlightenment Era. I agree with King Abdullah of Jordan: the establishment of a full-fledged, legitimate and representative Iraqi government is a cornerstone of the process of rebuilding Iraq. The Iraqi people must be allowed to choose their leadership and establish their own government.