Book Review: Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice

Martha Nussbaum's 2013 book, Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice, presents a fascinating dive into what might be needed to generate decent, honest governance with less injustice and social discord. Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago, considers what the philosophers who have engaged with this topic over the millennia have argued. Then she turns to modern psychology (cognitive and social science) for insight into how to refine what the great minds before her had to say about how to do it. She refines what has gone before in view of modern science.

In essence, Nussbaum sees and does politics the about the same way I do: Look for biological cognitive and social behavioral traits of humans doing politics. Then, try to find plausible ways to advance civil society that accords with what humans beings actually are in terms of their biology and social behavior. The exercise isn't about a complete reinvention of the wheel. Instead, it is about improving existing wheels, i.e., government structures and theories of governance, by acknowledging the fundamental centrality of human biological and social existence. The book is long and dense (the paperback is 397 pages, small print, no pictures), but it shows how human thinking evolves over the millennia.

Good governance

Nussbaum defines the ideal government as characterized by focused on justice and equality for all and a political-social mindset that is compassionate, inclusionary and driven by love of others in widening circles of proximity from self, to family, to locality, to nation, to other nations, and finally to humankind as a whole. The main focus is on use of the nation as the point to generate positive emotions and she is thus a nationalist, but not in the sense of an aggressive ideology.

A core need is compassion and equality morals that operate in a constitutional framework that helps to bridge narrow self-interested emotions to broader inclusive principle-embracing emotions. She asserts that constant critical dialog between the emotions the political culture is necessary. Due to our cognitive and social nature, it is easy for humans to backslide from support of broad practices to narrow concerns. For example, support for an inclusive educational policy can decline when the parent’s children encounter difficulty associated with the policy. Humans are easily distracted from broad goals to their particular circumstances. Some of the great orators, such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and FDR understood this human trait. Their rhetoric tended to stay away from particulars and instead focused on broader principles to foment support for ideals that often required some degree of personal sacrifice or acceptance.

Nussbaum is deeply concerned with the emotions and stigma that critical political and social culture can whip up against minorities, out-groups and other nations. Nationalism has been employed to foment a range of bad things ranging from domestic racial discrimination and misogyny to vicious foreign wars and totalitarianism. Those destructive impulses must be kept in mind and fought against constantly. In her view, playing on nationalism is playing with fire, but is nonetheless necessary. Despite the danger, Nussbaum sees nationalism as a key source to inspire justice and equality.

She argues that the nation is the largest political unit that people can feel is both reasonably accountable to them and also reflective of their collective history, aspirations and moral values. Because of that, the nation has to be a core source of emotional appeal to hold a society together and to induce it to support efforts that ask for personal sacrifice, equality for all and tolerance of both dissent and social differences in individuals and groups.

That is not say that the family and social institutions outside of government are not also important. Nussbaum cites the nuclear family as a necessary source of teaching love, compassion and acceptance of others in children. Public schools are also a necessary reinforcing social institution that can build depth and breadth in personal influence that belief in compassion and equality can exert on people and groups.

Civil religion for solidarity, justice, compassion and equality

Nussbaum argues that good governments and societies need a “civil religion” to help cement public support for justice, compassion and equality. In her view, a “political liberalism” can serve as an ideological basis for building and maintaining overlapping consensus among different religious and secular beliefs about fairness, equal respect and the public good. As John Rawls (American moral-political philosopher) also argued, this civil religion needs to be a free standing social and political force that is drawn from society culture itself. It is not to be derived from any abstract set of values imposed from the outside or any ideology.

However unlike Rawls and other humanists (e.g., Mills and Comte), Nussbaum welcomes existing religions as part of the civil religion family. Because the desired consensus and solidarity that civil religion is supposed to generate is home-grown, it consensus needs “thin” and not try give answers to divisive questions such as life after death or the destiny of the soul. In other words, the civil religion needs to be an ethical doctrine, not a metaphysical or epistemological construct. People will probably always differ in how they view answers to divisive metaphysical questions.

The civil religion concept is an attempted framework for moving people from individual, family and group or religion self-interest to a broader nation and its people interest. The hope is that that national interest can then serve as a fulcrum to extend the positive emotions and beliefs to other nations and ultimately humankind as a whole.

Christianity, democracy, capitalism and libertarianism

Nussbaum argues that Christianity, democracy, capitalism and libertarianism tend to foster narrow self and group interests at the expense of the broader ethical concerns for justice, compassion, equality and so forth at the national level. She asserts that Christianity focuses on an afterlife and an external source of authority and it tends to turn thinking inward and away from others as needed for a broader scope of compassion and acceptance. The religious group tends to elicit a tribal mindset, which can limit a broader worldview. Democracy also suffers from a an innate human tendency to form groups or tribes. Out-groups tend to be ostracized and oppressed.

Opposing that requires constant vigilance and significant effort. When public and political attention turns away from a policy that supports equality and acceptance, the human tendency to narrow the focus often leads to a weakening of the policy. Sometimes the abandoned policy is eliminated ro completely reversed. Thus, walking away from inclusive and pro-justice policies is a mistake that is too common for comfort.

The ideology and morals of capitalism and libertarianism tend to elevate individual concerns at the expense of broader social concerns for equality and justice. For example, ideological demands for almost absolute personal freedom and near-sacred status for personal property, are inherently not compassionate or are ‘anti-sympathy’. Instead, those ideologies tend to argue that human self-interest, acquisitiveness and/or fear alone will serve the public interest very well. Since neither capitalism nor libertarianism are concerned with other emotions such as disgust and the intolerance it foments, such regimes are morally too weak to give rise to stable regimes. Humans are not the rational economic or moral beings that capitalist and libertarian ideologues envision. Cognitive and social science both make that a matter of biological and social fact, not opinion.

One assertion is that a key capitalist and libertarian flaw is their focus is on what humans can do in terms of economic context, while ignoring what they cannot do in a social context. Nussbaum comments regarding anti-discrimination laws: “Libertarian thinkers argue that these laws are unnecessary because, discrimination is economically inefficient. .... Libertarian politics is naïve, because people are just not like that.” That accords with my understanding of history, which is that humans are far from the economic rational person that theory used to rigidly believe. The rational man theory is crumbling under the weight of knowledge flowing from the new research disciplines called behavioral economics and behavioral finance.

Sources of bad behavior and evil

Bad behavior and evil are inherent in the human condition. Nussbaum writes:

“Our working account of  ‘radical evil’ is not complete. We now need to add two tendencies that also appear deeply rooted in human nature, and which pose a serious threat to democratic institutions: the tendency to yield to peer pressure, even at the cost of truth, and the tendency to obey authority, even at the cost of moral concern. Both of these tendencies are very likely rooted in our evolutionary heritage ....”

Immanuel Kant described radical evil as innate tendencies to antisocial behavior that are at the root of our humanity. Because of its inherence, people don't need to be taught to be evil. They can even be evil despite contrary social teaching and norms. Hannah Arendt saw radical evil as a situation where human beings as human beings are superfluous because they lack spontaneity or freedom. Nussbaum asserts it includes “deliberately cruel and ugly behavior toward others that is not simply a matter of inadvertence or neglect, or even fear-tinged suspicion, but which involves some active desire to denigrate or humiliate.”

Clearly, Nussbaum is not a naïve utopian. She is acutely aware of how easy it is for even well-meaning people and societies to slip into bad behavior. What is personally encouraging in this is the fact that other people are trying to combine modern science with politics to build a better, more humane and just world.

The Gettysburg Address: Where America Isn't Today

“I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it. . . . In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government is necessary for us. . . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. . . . . It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies. who are waiting with confidence to hear how our Councils are Confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet, hereafter, for the purposes of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and I am not sure that it is not the best. . . . . On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument.” Benjamin Franklin, 1787, stating his consent to the new US Constitution

The Gettysburg Address struck me as reflecting something that is now largely lost in much of American society. It refers to our, origins, and the war and sacrifices that social division fomented. It expresses a sentiment that despite our often bitter, unresolvable disagreements, there is still something valuable and decent here to fight for. As Ben Franklin astutely pointed out in 1787, we never were perfect right from the get go. Despite that, we only do what we can under the circumstances we find ourselves. Doing that requires sacrifice for the common good, despite some ideological claims that the collective interest is inferior and inimical to the sacred individual and sacred their property. Lincoln didn't see it that way in 1863. Not by a long shot. Neither do I.[1]

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. —Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863

Society seems to usually progress slowly. Sometimes, its spurts ahead for a while. Sometimes it goes in reverse, as it is doing now. We have quite a way to go to get back to where I think we were earlier in my lifetime. What could lead to a reversal of the reversal isn't clear, but is probably isn't going to just be pragmatic rationalism alone. That seems to be a glue that's emotionally too weak to cement the social social vision and cohesion that Lincoln tried to foment in 1863 and we now desperately need again.


Footnote:
1. For a while, maybe the last year or so, one thing that has felt deficient about pragmatic rationalism is its lack of some sort of a spiritual or emotional component. Not necessarily religious or supernatural, but something. It isn't clear what that component (moral value?) might be.

You make the call...

It’s a year divisible by four, which means it’s a presidential election year, here in the U.S.  Time to return from The Mall® and start thinking about your predictions and preferences.  Will it be, e.g.:

Biden-Sanders

Sanders-Warren

Warren-Buttigieg

Other possible players to consider in the mix: Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, deBlasio, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobachar, Moulten, O’Rourke, Patrick, Ryan, Sestak, Swallwell, Steyer, Williamson, Yang, and VP long shots like Stacey Abrams, Sherrod Brown, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Susan Rice, … other?

How about this shockeroo:

Biden- Obama  Hey, not impossible! :-O

Q1: What do you predict as the democratic 2020 POTUS-VPOTUS ticket?

Q2: What do you personally WISH would be on the dem ticket?

Give answers and explanations.  

From Constitutional Rot to Constitutional Crisis

A previous discussion here focused in the concept of what exactly constitutes a constitutional crisis. To help define the concept, experts cite constitutional crisis and the related concept they call constitutional rot. The former includes legal but hyper-partisan hardball politics. The latter encompasses situations where the constitution is has literally failed and the rule of law disintegrates.

Constitutional rot

Constitutional rot (CR) arises when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball and fair political competition comes under attack. We see this now. For example, it was constitutional hardball by the Mitch McConnell to ignore President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. In CR, politicians favor short-term political gains over long-term damage to the constitutional system. As CR progresses, the political system becomes less democratic, e.g., as partisans pass laws to limit voting by the political opposition. State power becomes less accountable and less responsive to the public, while politicians become more beholden to backers who keep them in power. In essence, the country drifts into some sort of usually corrupt authoritarian despotism or oligarchy.

Constitutional crisis

A constitutional crisis (CC) is rare among nations that operate on a constitutional basis. There are three sources of CC. In the first source of constitutional failure, a CC arises when politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution any more. That happens when politicians and/or military officials refuse to obey a court order. Once refusal to adhere to constitutional rules has occurred, the constitution has failed.

The second kind of CC arises when many people refuse to obey the constitution. In these scenarios, there can be street riots, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation. This involves "situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests: people take to the streets, armies mobilize, and brute force is used or threatened in order to prevail."

The third kind of CC arises when the constitution prevents political actors from trying to prevent an impending disaster, which is a very rare event. In these situations, courts usually dream up some way to get around constitutional constraints. The problem with that tactic, is that it usually leaves in its wake a rancid precedent that authoritarians and tyrants can later use to oppress political opposition and dissent. An example is the United States Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). That very bad decision defended exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. Korematsu has widely been criticized as bigotry and a stain on US law.

On the cusp of a constitutional crisis

The New York Times is reporting that the Trump administration is refusing a court order to turn over 20 emails the NYT demanded under a FOIA request. The NYT filed the demand to get information about Trump administration escapades with Ukraine. The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — The Trump administration disclosed on Friday that there were 20 emails between a top aide to President Trump’s acting chief of staff and a colleague at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget discussing the freeze of a congressionally mandated military aid package for Ukraine. 

But in response to a court order that it swiftly process those pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit filed by The New York Times, the Office of Management and Budget delivered a terse letter saying it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails — not even with redactions. 

‘All 20 documents are being withheld in full,’ wrote Dionne Hardy, the office’s Freedom of Information Act officer. 

A report on Thursday by the legal policy website Just Security added further fuel to the controversy by revealing what was under some, but not all, of the deletions. The website said it had been shown some of the emails in unredacted form, including an Aug. 30 message from Mr. Duffey to a Pentagon budget official stating that there was ‘clear direction from POTUS’ — an acronym referring to the president of the United States — ‘to continue to hold’ the Ukraine military assistance.”

The White House asserts that the emails cannot be turned over to the NYT because that would “inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.” Another thing it would very likely do, is provide additional proof that Trump and his corrupt administration broke the law and committed impeachable acts in dealings with Ukraine. That is the real reason the president is withholding the documents.

This is not hyperbole: America is on the razor edge of a true constitutional crisis. The president openly refuses a court order to hide evidence of his corrupt and illegal actions related to Ukraine. Not only has our corrupt president attacked Iran (and, indirectly Iraq) twice in two days to try to deflect attention from disclosures of his illegal and impeachable actions in office, he also willingly put America on the cusp of a true constitutional crisis just to serve his personal political interests.

This case will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. If that court allows the president to keep the documents hidden from the public, the crisis will be avoided. If not, then the president can decide to thrown America into full blown crisis or to comply and avoid a constitutional failure.

As discussed here yesterday, when a person loses trust in someone or an institution, then that person’s mind is no longer constrained by norms that protect the person or institution to some extent from unreasonable beliefs and reality-detached conspiracy theories and opinions. Given the president’s undeniable track record of making thousands of false and misleading statements to the American people, there is no objective basis in evidence for any trust in anything the president says or does. The president deserves no public trust because he earned no trust.

That's not some unhinged or reality-detached conspiracy theory. It is a logical conclusion of truth based on undeniable empirical evidence in the public record.