WORLD POLITICS: PART I
What does it mean to say that we are at a critical juncture in history? And if we are at this point, how can we study it while we are living it?
To get our bearings, let us look back on roughly the last two centuries. Over this period, multiple generations grew accustomed to living in the era of the Modern Nation-State. In this opening section of our course, I shall outline the defining aspects of this unique human invention. I shall also outline the characteristics of the particular expression of this state that we have known best and from which we have profited immensely: Liberal Democracy. I will draw a connection between two perspectives we all share in common: “modernity” and “liberalism.” At this early point in the semester, we will deal with several abstract concepts. In the coming weeks, these abstractions will begin to become real to you when we consider the origins and evolution of the Liberal Nation-State.
My personal guarantee: By the end of this course, you will see how my abstractions fit together into one dynamic story. You should also have a sense for what it means to live in a time of radical uncertainty. I am telling a story with no clear ending. This is a good academic story. More importantly, it is your story, too.
1. LECTURE: Monday, August 10,
Reflections on the evolution of political institutions: The making of the Modern Nation-State and the indeterminate nature of human history.
Today’s Assumption: The Modern Nation-State is distinguished by the underlying idea that one can bring together different peoples and contending identities under the rubric of a common community. This state form represents a novel way of organizing human beings. To be clear, not all states are Nation-States. And, not all peoples want to live together. Just look at the disastrous consequences of our experiments in nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq!
Assignment: Watch the video below and reflect upon the issue of historical change. Also, look ahead to your Friday discussion section. You will have a paragraph assignment
The nature of historical change as seen by a paleontologist. Stephen Jay Gould talks about the approach to studying fundamental change that I find totally convincing—the theory of evolution. Watch at least the first 6 minutes of this stimulating video: WATCH As you listen to Gould, ask yourself how his arguments about both human evolution, “punctuated equilibrium” (what does this concept mean?), and the extinction of dinosaurs can be applied to the evolution of political ideas and institutions.
Perhaps we are currently living in a state of punctuated equilibrium?
2. Wednesday, August 12
Reflections on what it means for citizens of the United States to live in modern times.
Today’s Assumption: We are all Modern. By this statement, I mean that we share conceptions of truth and ideas about how to organize our lives which differ fundamentally from those held by other societies in the world.
An essential part of being modern is agreement on facts. Thanks to our capacity to reason, we pursue factual knowledge and build theories by using the scientific method (even though we don’t always recognize that this is what we are doing). The acceptance of a factual claim (e.g., a heliocentric model of our solar system) does not prevent us from holding a religious faith (e.g., the existence of God). The believer’s faith in God may be just as true as factual knowledge. For example, facts cannot tell us how to act. In contrast, religious faiths can do so. For this reason, I believe that certain aspects of my personal faith–especially the obligation to treat people as having intrinsic dignity–are no less true than the claim that the earth rotates around the sun. No matter what any non-religious person says, they are not simply my opinion.
Throughout much of its modern history, the Catholic Church has maintained that there is no contradiction between the acceptance of factual knowledge (reason) and faith—these truth claims are simply different forms of knowing.
Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451. Start reading this book now and finish it as soon as possible. What would it be like to live in a world where humans were prevented from seeking truth through facts?
Jen Christensen, “The Most Accurate Clock in the World is Redefining the Second” READ What can a mechanical clock tell you about modern society?
Oprah Winfrey on pursuing the truth: READ
Alan Burdick, “Some Good News, and a Hard Truth about Science,” New York Times, November 18, 2018 READ
NOTE: At the bottom of your assigned readings for our first discussion section on Friday, there is a writing assignment.
3. Friday, August 14 Discussion Section
Here is your discussion theme: “What does it mean to be a real American?”
How do we decide who belongs in the United States? How do we decide who does not? Assuming you are an American citizen, how did you acquire this title? Should every American do more to reasonably be called a citizen? If so, what? Finally, how are Americans doing with their fellow citizens?
Trigger Warning for Liberals! Many of these readings come from conservative sites and/or conservative writers. Pay particular attention to the two primary readings:
Primary Reading #1: Samuel Huntington, “The Hispanic Challenge” (Foreign Policy): PRINT AND READ
Huntington was a preeminent political scientist. Note his incredible prediction on p. 14.
Primary Reading #2: “Remarks by President Donald Trump at Mt. Rushmore” PRINT AND READ
Emma Lazarus, “The New Colossus,” a plaque on America’s Statue of Liberty: PRINT AND READ
Edward Hudgins, “What is an American?” (the libertarian Cato Institute) READ
“Alan Dershowitz, “Birthright Citizenship is Bizarre” (the Alt-Right Breitbart News) READ
Christopher Manion (PhD, Political Science, Notre Dame), “The Catholic Bishops and Immigration Reform” (the traditionalist Catholic magazine, Crisis): READ Note his defense of Huntington’s position.
In addition to these views on what it means to be an American, ask yourself this question: What is an American Car? READ Why on earth would I pose this question?
Assignment: Write a one-paragraph (no more!) response to the following question: “In your opinion, what is the single, most important requirement for being a ‘true American’.” You may only choose one requirement. The point of your paragraph is to persuade the reader why it is the single, most important factor.
You should send your TA one-paragraph response by 5:00 pm on the Thursday preceding every Friday discussion section. All paragraphs should be typed and double-spaced (12 point font). Google documents are preferable.
Your TA will be happy to talk with you about this assignment or any future assignments.
4. LECTURE: Monday, August 17
Reflections on a political invention, the Liberal Nation-state. Liberalism is a specific set of principles according to which some human beings have organized their relations in modern times. However, it is not the only expression of modern politics. As we shall see later in this course, Fascism and Leninism are also forms of modern politics. As we look into the future , there will be seemingly self-evident political identities that are not liberal at all. I think we are experiencing elements of these post-liberal identities right now.
Abraham Lincoln invents the liberal nation-state: READ
Today’s Assumption: We are all Liberals! (Sorry, Steve Bannon, but it’s true.) However, this is no cause for alarm for political conservatives. In making this claim, I do not mean that we are “liberals” in terms of our political affiliation. Rather, I am referring to classical Liberalism, a conception of political order that was invented–not discovered–by people like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
Assignment: Read Chapter II, “On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion,” in John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1869): PRINT AND READ
Then, listen to musician Frank Zappa talk about freedom of speech HERE Do you agree with Mr. Zappa? If not, where should we draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate free speech in a Liberal society? Or should there be a dividing line at all?
The Nazis march on Charlottesville in 2017. Consider these contrasting views on free speech:
Anthony Romero, ACLU Executive Director, “Equality, Justice and the First Amendment” READ
K-Sue Park, “The ACLU needs to rethink Free Speech” READ