Texas BOE decide Thomas Jefferson is not that great

[Witch]

In retrospect, if the original unit is on influential political thinkers, both lists are remarkably biased. Where is Marx? Where is Confucius? Where is Machiavelli? It seems to me that these are all quite a bit more influential than Jacques 'let's all return to a primitive society!' Rousseau. The lack of Machiavelli and Confucius in the original list is understandable given the emphasis on revolutions post-1750, but the lack of Marx is not excusable in this context.

[Thanas]

In retrospect, if the original unit is on influential political thinkers, both lists are remarkably biased. Where is Marx? Where is Confucius? Where is Machiavelli? It seems to me that these are all quite a bit more influential than Jacques 'let's all return to a primitive society!' Rousseau. The lack of Machiavelli and Confucius in the original list is understandable given the emphasis on revolutions post-1750, but the lack of Marx is not excusable in this context.

You are an idiot if you really think Rosseau is not the deciding influence on western law and society. His school, which heavily influenced Jefferson, Caritat etc., had the most influence on western society. How many constitutions has Marx influenced? How many Rosseau?

[Witch]

The deciding influence on Western law and society? Here I thought Roman law, Christianity and Greek philosophy have been substantial contributors to Western law and society. Unfortunately, I was evidently mistaken, as it was "Rosseau" (sic) who was not only an influential intellectual (which I do not dispute), but "the deciding influence". Apparently, political influence is also measured by counting the number of constitutions one has influenced. I was unaware of that, but I can work with it. I'll try and give a starting tally for Constitutions influenced by Marx: the Constitution of the Soviet Union, the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the Constitution of East Germany, ...? I presume there are a few more. Does the size of the countries also count?

I'd hold off with calling people idiots.

[Thanas]

The deciding influence on Western law and society? Here I thought Roman law, Christianity and Greek philosophy have been substantial contributors to Western law and society.

Strawman. Nowhere did I declare them to be of no influence.

Unfortunately, I was evidently mistaken, as it was "Rosseau" (sic) who was not only an influential intellectual (which I do not dispute), but "the deciding influence". Apparently, political influence is also measured by counting the number of constitutions one has influenced. I was unaware of that, but I can work with it.

You apparently think that Marx is more important than the one who invented the whole concept of a social contract, popular sovereignty and the theory that law, man-made and not god-given, is the supreme basis of government. In case you do not know it yet, all western constitutions are based on those concepts. In fact, every modern Western society is based on it.

I'll try and give a starting tally for Constitutions influenced by Marx: the Constitution of the Soviet Union, the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the Constitution of East Germany, ...? I presume there are a few more. Does the size of the countries also count?

East Germany does not exist anymore, neither does the soviet union and the influence of Marx in china is hardly that large anymore. Whatever they are using now is clearly not Marxism, but more of a heavy dose of socialism and a command state, with the formers influence being more and more limited as private entrepreneurship is more embraced.

Try again.

[Witch]

The deciding influence on Western law and society? Here I thought Roman law, Christianity and Greek philosophy have been substantial contributors to Western law and society.

Strawman. Nowhere did I declare them to be of no influence.

You made them all subordinate to Rousseau by declaring him the the deciding influence.

Unfortunately, I was evidently mistaken, as it was "Rosseau" (sic) who was not only an influential intellectual (which I do not dispute), but "the deciding influence". Apparently, political influence is also measured by counting the number of constitutions one has influenced. I was unaware of that, but I can work with it.

You apparently think that Marx is more important than the one who invented the whole concept of a social contract, popular sovereignty and the theory that law, man-made and not god-given, is the supreme basis of government. In case you do not know it yet, all western constitutions are based on those concepts. In fact, every modern Western society is based on it.

Rousseau did not invent the notion of a social contract. The first influential modern formulation was made by Thomas Hobbes. The notion of natural rights derives from Grotius. The notion of popular sovereignty Rousseau espouses was one of direct democracy - he did not even consider representative democracy to be democratic, but aristocratic.

I'll try and give a starting tally for Constitutions influenced by Marx: the Constitution of the Soviet Union, the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the Constitution of East Germany, ...? I presume there are a few more. Does the size of the countries also count?

East Germany does not exist anymore, neither does the soviet union and the influence of Marx in china is hardly that large anymore. Whatever they are using now is clearly not Marxism, but more of a heavy dose of socialism and a command state, with the formers influence being more and more limited as private entrepreneurship is more embraced.

States don't lose their historical importance because they no longer exist.

[Thanas]

The deciding influence on Western law and society? Here I thought Roman law, Christianity and Greek philosophy have been substantial contributors to Western law and society.

Strawman. Nowhere did I declare them to be of no influence.

You made them all subordinate to Rousseau by declaring him the the deciding influence.

Apparently, reading comprehension is not your forte. Here is an example for you:

- Mommsen was the deciding influence on Roman historians.
- Niebuhr was a very influential historian, though less influential than Mommsen.

Are the two statements contradictory?

Rousseau did not invent the notion of a social contract. The first influential modern formulation was made by Thomas Hobbes.

Wrong. The social contract formulated by Rousseau is quite different from that of Hobbes. Hobbes advocates an authoritarian monarchy, Rousseau advocates liberal republicanism.

The notion of natural rights derives from Grotius.

If we use your previous statement that apparently all concepts, no matter how different, are the same because they have the same name, then the notion derives from stoic philosophy. But again - Rousseau did not invent natural rights, but he was the one who first derived a political philosophy from it.

The notion of popular sovereignty Rousseau espouses was one of direct democracy - he did not even consider representative democracy to be democratic, but aristocratic.

Nevertheless, the concept of volonté générale is the basis of all modern democracy. The fact that the application of his theory has been modified during the French revolution and the Swiss constitutions does not mean they are not important. The social contract is the basis of all western democracy.

States don't lose their historical importance because they no longer exist.

Nice non-rebuttal there. You said that Marx was more important than Rousseau. Now provide some evidence for that.

[Witch]

I have never declared any statements to be contradictory; I have merely claimed that you hold Rousseau to be the paramount influence in Western society. Enlightenment intellectuals have been influential on many levels, and it seems to me to be quite arbitrary to state that it was Rousseau who held the paramount influence. It might have been mistaken of me to mock his contributions earlier, as influence is a remarkably difficult thing to measure, but putting him to be the most important contributor of Western society as a whole (i.e. from Scandinavia to Italy and from Germany to the United States) seems quite arbitrary. As you admit yourself, he recycles a great deal of material (appropriation of ideas is quite normal to a philosopher), but his ideas were appropriated as well. He adapted earlier ideas, and his ideas were adapted once more. In addition, I wonder whether Western democracy had not already existed in England, before Rousseau developed his political philosophy. I am not entirely sure how British democracy altered over the years, so I don't want to claim anything about that, but it does render me rather skeptical.

As to your remark about Marxism: as you already admitted yourself, the ideas of Rousseau were also modified in their application, so it must not surprising anybody that Marx's were as well. In any case, it cannot be denied that all of these countries were heavily influenced by Marxism, even if they are no longer.


All of this, however, is entirely beyond my initial point, which was merely that (aside from cute jokes about Rousseau) a course that aims to describe influential political thinkers in the world (and not just the Western world) should include Marx, Confucius and Machiavelli. Can you agree on that?

[Thanas]

I have never declared any statements to be contradictory; I have merely claimed that you hold Rousseau to be the paramount influence in Western society.

And what is wrong with that statement? Oh, that is right. I never claimed he was the paramount influence in western society, but in modern western society and politics. Modern is quite an important qualifier here, don't you think?

Enlightenment intellectuals have been influential on many levels, and it seems to me to be quite arbitrary to state that it was Rousseau who held the paramount influence.

Name another whose contribution matter more.

It might have been mistaken of me to mock his contributions earlier, as influence is a remarkably difficult thing to measure, but putting him to be the most important contributor of Western society as a whole (i.e. from Scandinavia to Italy and from Germany to the United States) seems quite arbitrary. As you admit yourself, he recycles a great deal of material (appropriation of ideas is quite normal to a philosopher), but his ideas were appropriated as well. He adapted earlier ideas, and his ideas were adapted once more.

See above. What developments are more important than the social contract as formulated by Rousseau, or the idea of popular sovereignty etc?

In addition, I wonder whether Western democracy had not already existed in England, before Rousseau developed his political philosophy. I am not entirely sure how British democracy altered over the years, so I don't want to claim anything about that, but it does render me rather skeptical.

England was no democracy. Heck, until the Representation of the People Act of 1832 the house of commons did not even have real democratic elections. The wikipedia article, while generalizing, is not that bad.

As to your remark about Marxism: as you already admitted yourself, the ideas of Rousseau were also modified in their application, so it must not surprising anybody that Marx's were as well. In any case, it cannot be denied that all of these countries were heavily influenced by Marxism, even if they are no longer.

Yes, but if you go by that criteria, Rousseau is even more influential as his ideas are still in direct application, for example in the swiss confederation or the idea of the Volksentscheid in numerous German states.

All of this, however, is entirely beyond my initial point, which was merely that (aside from cute jokes about Rousseau) a course that aims to describe influential political thinkers in the world (and not just the Western world) should include Marx, Confucius and Machiavelli. Can you agree on that?

Depends. If you only have limited time and you only have limited slots, so to speak, Machiavelli, Confucius and Marx are not persons I would pick. If I only got six slots to fill, they would be filled with Platon, Ibn Khaldoun (or Aristoteles, Augustinus, Aquinas), Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. As for the last slot, it is a toss between Montesquieu, Hegel or Kant. Machiavelli might be substituted for Hobbes, but Confucius and Marx are pretty hard to fit in there.

[Witch]

Regarding the other points: please reference your first claim about Rousseau's influence - you did omit the word 'modern'. Secondly, quantifying influence is rather difficult, so naturally I can't suggest another Enlightenment philosopher who influenced society more.

Depends. If you only have limited time and you only have limited slots, so to speak, Machiavelli, Confucius and Marx are not persons I would pick. If I only got six slots to fill, they would be filled with Platon, Ibn Khaldoun (or Aristoteles, Augustinus, Aquinas), Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. As for the last slot, it is a toss between Montesquieu, Hegel or Kant. Machiavelli might be substituted for Hobbes, but Confucius and Marx are pretty hard to fit in there.

It's obviously quite unclear what the course is entirely about, as it seems to presume that it is about Western politics and society, which, to me, seems rather inadequate, given the title 'world history'. How can one avoid discussion of Confucius, who dominated Chinese politics for 2000 years and continues (after a short relapse) to do so even now, be ignored?

[Thanas]

Regarding the other points: please reference your first claim about Rousseau's influence - you did omit the word 'modern'.

His school, which heavily influenced Jefferson, Caritat etc., had the most influence on western society.

It should be pretty much self-evident that he could not have any influence about not-modern society as he did not live before it.

Secondly, quantifying influence is absurdly difficult, so naturally I can't suggest another Enlightenment philosopher who influenced society more.

We can quite easily see what concepts are still in use today. Heck, for the easiest of all things, just take a concept (like generational equality) and see if it is in any way mentioned or thought to be part of modern constitutions or rulings. Heck, my exam thesis for my law degree was partially composed of this.

It's obviously quite unclear what the course is entirely about, as it seems to presume that it is about Western politics and society, which, to me, seems rather inadequate, given the title 'world history'. How can one avoid discussion of Confucius, who dominated Chinese politics for 2000 years and continues (after a short relapse) to do so even now, be ignored?

Well, Confucius is quite important. But not that important to western philosophy as one finds his concepts in the writings of many others. In any case, confucianism is hardly a definite political philosophy as we find it in Hobbes. It does not directly lead to a specific concept of a political system, but rather to concepts of general rule.

Confucianism can, for example the rule through rite, quite easily be adopted by both a dictatorship, a liberal monarchy or a democracy. It does not give automatic rise to one predominant system. Yes, I know, he championed the rule of one autocrat, but that does not really arise out of the beliefs per se, unless I remember confucius wrong, which can easily be the case as it has been ten years since I read him.

[Witch]

You remember correctly; in fact, one important contemporary strain of Confucianism emphasizes its democratic elements. (That is, they emphasize the strain in Mencius by which it is legitimate to rebel against unjust rulers.)

[Simon_Jester]

Depends. If you only have limited time and you only have limited slots, so to speak, Machiavelli, Confucius and Marx are not persons I would pick. If I only got six slots to fill, they would be filled with Platon, Ibn Khaldoun (or Aristoteles, Augustinus, Aquinas), Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. As for the last slot, it is a toss between Montesquieu, Hegel or Kant. Machiavelli might be substituted for Hobbes, but Confucius and Marx are pretty hard to fit in there.

Hmm.

The one issue I have about this is my concern that it's worth trying to cover people who had a large impact even when nobody ended up designing a legal system that they'd endorse. Marx created a lot of ripples through the rest of the 19th and into the 20th century, and in many ways the smoke still hasn't cleared. Granted that none of the revolutions that were fought in his name wound up going where he liked, but it's still worth knowing how that movement began.

Particularly in the US, an unbiased account of what Marx actually wanted, even a short one, would be immensely useful in the high school curriculum. Good luck getting it out of a Texas school board, though.

[Winston Blake]

On the subject of the word 'democracy', I don't get where all the Americans are coming from. Never mind the average person, all of the academic discourse that I've encountered (politics undergraduate at Oxford) authors have quite happily used democracy while talking about European and American governmental systems. This odd idea that Republic is the correct term is something that I've never encountered off the internet and either way makes the term essentially meaningless it defines it so narrowly.

I think it should depend on context. If Australia, Britain and Canada are described as constitutional monarchies in a textbook, then in the same section, America should be described as a constitutional republic, not as a nebulous 'democracy'. Where they are described as parliamentary democracies, America should be described as a presidential democracy.

[Teebs]

I think it should depend on context. If Australia, Britain and Canada are described as constitutional monarchies in a textbook, then in the same section, America should be described as a constitutional republic, not as a nebulous 'democracy'. Where they are described as parliamentary democracies, America should be described as a presidential democracy.

And in no actual academic discourse have I seen those countries referred to as constitutional republics or monarchies because it's not a helpful way of looking at the way they're governed. Sure the UK is technically a constitutional monarchy, but every nation has a constitution (certainly every demcratic nation) and the fact that it's a monarchy is an irrelevancy. Calling it a constitutional monarchy just gets foreign high schoolers thinking the monarch actually is actually a powerful figure.

[Thanas]

And in no actual academic discourse have I seen those countries referred to as constitutional republics or monarchies because it's not a helpful way of looking at the way they're governed. Sure the UK is technically a constitutional monarchy, but every nation has a constitution (certainly every demcratic nation) and the fact that it's a monarchy is an irrelevancy. Calling it a constitutional monarchy just gets foreign high schoolers thinking the monarch actually is actually a powerful figure.

That is strange. In law discourse, the correct term is always used. And anybody who is confused by that gets called an ignoramus.

[Witch]

I think it should depend on context. If Australia, Britain and Canada are described as constitutional monarchies in a textbook, then in the same section, America should be described as a constitutional republic, not as a nebulous 'democracy'. Where they are described as parliamentary democracies, America should be described as a presidential democracy.

And in no actual academic discourse have I seen those countries referred to as constitutional republics or monarchies because it's not a helpful way of looking at the way they're governed. Sure the UK is technically a constitutional monarchy, but every nation has a constitution (certainly every demcratic nation) and the fact that it's a monarchy is an irrelevancy. Calling it a constitutional monarchy just gets foreign high schoolers thinking the monarch actually is actually a powerful figure.

It is incorrect to consider the monarchy an irrelevant element. Monarchs wield a large amount of influence, and are often not afraid to use it. In Canada, the representative of Elisabeth II has temporarily suspended parliament in order to prevent a vote of no confidence in the prime minister (who leads a minority government). In Belgium, the King assigned Herman Van Rompuy, a man who received 3.69% of the votes he was eligible for (as opposed to Yves Leterme, whose government had fallen and had about 13.3% of the votes he was eligible for) as Prime Minister. This assignment effectively provided Van Rompuy with the opportunity to become President of the European Council.

It may be that you argue that a monarch acts upon the advice of senior politicians. This is very possible, but not all monarchs have a strictly ceremonial role.

[Teebs]

It is incorrect to consider the monarchy an irrelevant element. Monarchs wield a large amount of influence, and are often not afraid to use it. In Canada, the representative of Elisabeth II has temporarily suspended parliament in order to prevent a vote of no confidence in the prime minister (who leads a minority government). In Belgium, the King assigned Herman Van Rompuy, a man who received 3.69% of the votes he was eligible for (as opposed to Yves Leterme, whose government had fallen and had about 13.3% of the votes he was eligible for) as Prime Minister. This assignment effectively provided Van Rompuy with the opportunity to become President of the European Council.

It may be that you argue that a monarch acts upon the advice of senior politicians. This is very possible, but not all monarchs have a strictly ceremonial role.

"Acting on the advice of senior politicians" means irrelevant. I reiterate in a politics degree discussion of the power of monarchs did not exist because they were considered to be irrelevancies.

I'll concede that in cases of questionable government formation monarchs can exercise some power but this is uncontroversial and very very limited. Once again, following the 'advice' of senior politicians to do things doesn't mean they have power of their own.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd enter the debate if you please. I'd say that if we were speaking about political influence, then surely Marx and Machiavelli are a must, and their omission is only excusable if one has a very limited programme more oriented on domestic politics influence, rather than world politics.

In case we are talking about general philosophy, in a limited course or something, Machiavelli and Marx could be easily omitted - they are both critical to politics and political philosophy, but philosophy in general as a condensed course can either ignore them or limit exposure.

Depends on how and for what you build the program, anyways.

We had political philosophy as a separate subject and it was quite certainly very domestic-applied, with a greater focus on Asia and Europe - we had Marx, Confucius, Machiavelli, Platon, Ibn Khaldoun, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau (and some minor figures, more close to Russia - Bakunin, etc.)

Jefferson was nowhere to be found, of course.

[Phantasee]

Can you guys recommend some books on Ibn Khaldoun? Introductory books would be better, maybe textbooks. I've never heard of this guy.

[Winston Blake]

I think it should depend on context. If Australia, Britain and Canada are described as constitutional monarchies in a textbook, then in the same section, America should be described as a constitutional republic, not as a nebulous 'democracy'. Where they are described as parliamentary democracies, America should be described as a presidential democracy.

And in no actual academic discourse have I seen those countries referred to as constitutional republics or monarchies because it's not a helpful way of looking at the way they're governed. Sure the UK is technically a constitutional monarchy, but every nation has a constitution (certainly every demcratic nation) and the fact that it's a monarchy is an irrelevancy. Calling it a constitutional monarchy just gets foreign high schoolers thinking the monarch actually is actually a powerful figure.

"Acting on the advice of senior politicians" means irrelevant. I reiterate in a politics degree discussion of the power of monarchs did not exist because they were considered to be irrelevancies.

I don't see why introductory high school textbooks should be written like academic discourses at the level of a university politics degree. I was taught in high school that I live in a constitutional monarchy. You can call that a 'technicality', but I think schools need to teach a lot of the common-knowledge technicalities that adults casually omit, or else they wouldn't be common knowledge.

[Teebs]

I don't see why introductory high school textbooks should be written like academic discourses at the level of a university politics degree. I was taught in high school that I live in a constitutional monarchy. You can call that a 'technicality', but I think schools need to teach a lot of the common-knowledge technicalities that adults casually omit, or else they wouldn't be common knowledge.

I haven't at any point said that school textbooks should be written with university level material, I've only brought up university level material to make a point about what the accurate view of government is. My objection is simply that it's inaccurate as to the actual way the country works. If those 'common-knowledge technicalities' in fact give a misleading impression of the way things work then why should they be included?

[Elfdart]

Jefferson's reputation among fundies has always been low. Not only was he an atheist and a creature of the Enlightenment, but he committed the ultimate crime of miscegenation. The things that really piss them off however, are "and the pursuit of happiness" and the Ninth Amendment, which was his gift (and that of his padawan learners like Madison) to the Bill of Rights:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This single sentence, to the degree that the government pays any attention to it, is a kick in the balls to our homegrown would-be ayatollahs. Everything from abortion, birth control, pornography, drugs, gay marriage would not only be legal, but they would not be subject to interference from the state no matter how many Fetus Christers managed to assemble a quorum. The idea of a citizen reserving rights for himself or herself is dangerous for busybodies.

[Darth Wong]

In Canada, the representative of Elisabeth II has temporarily suspended parliament in order to prevent a vote of no confidence in the prime minister (who leads a minority government).

That is an extraordinarily misleading way to describe what happened. Either by design or by horrendously incompetent semantics, this statement implies that the monarch is actually interfering in the affairs of the Canadian government, which is completely untrue.

The Governor-General simply rubber-stamped a formal prorogue request from the Prime Minister. This does not demonstrate the relevancy of the monarchy; it just demonstrates that it is in fact a mere ceremonial function. In fact, if the G-G were to routinely make serious decisions rather than merely rubber-stamping everything that comes her way, we would probably have constitutional talks to change the way our government operates.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And in no actual academic discourse have I seen those countries referred to as constitutional republics or monarchies because it's not a helpful way of looking at the way they're governed. Sure the UK is technically a constitutional monarchy, but every nation has a constitution (certainly every demcratic nation) and the fact that it's a monarchy is an irrelevancy. Calling it a constitutional monarchy just gets foreign high schoolers thinking the monarch actually is actually a powerful figure.

You really think so? I was taught in high school that Sweden is a typical modern constitutional monarchy, where the monarch has very little real power, and in actuality the King of Sweden has no political power whatsoever, not even in theory. The Queen of England is a veritable autocrat compared to the King of Sweden...

[Teebs]

You really think so? I was taught in high school that Sweden is a typical modern constitutional monarchy, where the monarch has very little real power, and in actuality the King of Sweden has no political power whatsoever, not even in theory. The Queen of England is a veritable autocrat compared to the King of Sweden...

Did you have a point or are you just using hyperbole? I can think of one very minor power The Queen holds in reality (as opposed to all the theoretical things she could do but is thoroughly bound by convention not to - and remember convention is as binding as anything in the UK constitution).

Edited to correct spelling.