#27: MIGHT AND RIGHT
My latest contribution to this series was published in April of 2024, so that hiatus deserves an explanation. One reason is that I moved both my home and my office, a process that consumed considerable time, effort, and energy and eclipsed almost everything else. More relevant to the content of this blog, however, is that I simply could find little to add to what I have already said about the current crisis facing democracy not only in the United States but throughout the world. That began to change when both England (on July 4) and France (on July 7) conducted elections that changed the direction of the political winds blowing in Europe. However, the most dramatic shift took place on the evening of July 24, 2024, when President Biden made the following announcement from the Oval Office:
When you elected me to this office, I promised to always level with you, to tell you the truth. And the truth, the sacred cause of this country is larger than any one of us. And those of us who cherish that cause — cherish it so much — the cause of American democracy itself — must unite to protect it.
You know, in recent weeks, it’s become clear to me that I needed to unite my party in this critical endeavor. I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future all merited a second term, but nothing — nothing — can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition.
So, I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. That’s the best way to unite our nation.
I know there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life. But there is also a time and place for new voices, fresh voices — yes, younger voices. And that time and place is now (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/24/).
President Biden’s withdrawal from the current contest for the U. S. presidency opens several philosophical questions that encourage us to bring philosophy to life. In November of 2016, my colleague and fellow lover of wisdom, Ron Waite, sent me a forlorn message proclaiming that Thrasymachus had just become president of the United States. Let’s begin with a closer look at what that means today. The term “strength” played a major role in the 2024 Republican National Convention held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The slogan “Make America Great Again” is an obvious appeal to strength and power. Here are some examples of what that means from Trump’s acceptance speech:
1. “Under our leadership, the United States will be RESPECTED again. No nation will question our power. No enemy will doubt our might” (https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-international/read-donald-trumps-full-rnc-speech-accepting-gop-nomination/3432055/).
2. “Less than four years ago, I handed this administration the strongest border in American history” (ibid.).
3. “We will replenish our military” (ibid.).
At first these claims merely seem to be examples of familiar political rhetoric, but if we ask about the basic principles implicit in this appeal to power it is hard to find either examples or ideas that go beyond economic values, sheer physical strength, or police and military might. In his acceptance speech, Trump chose the professional wrestler Hulk Hogan to illustrate what he understands as the core meaning of strength and power. The implicit message contained in the slogan “Make America Great Again” is that the American Empire has lost the dominance it once had and is on the wane. Economic values rule everything else in this vision of governance, making clear that the meaning of strength and power is centered on military and economic power designed to protect and expand global markets dominated by the United States. Is this the kind of strength we most need in our political life? Is this the most effective means to achieve justice, to foster a physical environment in which our grandchildren can live and thrive, and fairly to distribute the goods and services we need for the best possible life?
Now consider the strength and courage President Biden displayed in withdrawing from the current campaign. As Commander in Chief of the U.S., he has unimaginable military and police power at his disposal, but instead he seems to have chosen the power of truth and wisdom. That view may change as history unfolds, but there is a clear difference between the idea of strength as military might and the power of doing what is right and good for humanity, not for the short-term interests of individuals. This is a philosophical distinction that might benefit from closer analysis and justification.
In the 5th century BCE, long before Machiavelli advised princes about how to acquire and retain power, Thrasymachus identified strength as the most important value. Here is how Plato’s character with that name framed that idea:
Thrasymachus: … I say that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger. Now, why don’t you praise me? But of course you won’t.
Socrates: First, I must understand you. Your answer is not yet clear. Justice, you say, is the interest of the stronger. Thrasymachus, what does that mean? Surely you don’t mean that because the wrestler Polydamas is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that eating lots of beef is therefore equally good and just for us (Plato's Republic, Agora Publications, Kindle Edition, p. 14).
What, exactly, do we mean by “the stronger”? Thrasymachus tries to clarify that idea:
Thrasymachus: Different forms of government make laws in different ways. Some operate democratically; in others the aristocrats rule; and in still others a single tyrant makes the laws. It all depends on their various interests. They all claim that what is advantageous to themselves is justice for the people they rule. Anyone who violates this principle they punish as a lawbreaker, and they brand that person as unjust. That is what I mean, sir, when I say that there exists in all states the same principle of justice, and that is the interest of the established government. In all cases the government has the power, so the only reasonable conclusion is that everywhere there is but one principle of justice: the interest of the stronger. (Plato's Republic, pp. 14-15).
One problem with Thrasymachus’ definition is that strength alone will not suffice. We also need to know what is truly in our interest, but it is easy to make a mistake about that. For example, it might be a mistake to limit our interest to military and economic values. If we get it wrong, especially if we choose the opposite of our interest, great strength will undermine rather than foster our interest. In other words, knowledge is more important than power. Thrasymachus attempts to counter Socrates’ point by saying that to the degree that, for example, a physician who makes a mistake is not a physician but one who acts as a genuine physician will not make mistakes. However, Socrates’ main point remains: Strength alone is not enough because knowledge is also required. Another, even more important flaw in Thrasymachus’ definition concerns the idea of “the stronger.” Socrates next establishes that when acting as a physician and employing the strength that medical knowledge bestows, it is actually “the weaker” (one who lacks such knowledge) whose interest is being served, not “the stronger” (one who has such knowledge). Medicine exists for the patient, not for the doctor. The obvious conclusion that comes from this section of the dialogue is that in medicine, in law, in politics, or in any other important human activity knowledge and wisdom must rule.
Thrasymachus is not finished. Instead of following the logic Socrates presents, he moves to an even more extreme position by admitting what we have suspected all along—he is not really interested in justice or any other moral value but prefers the supposed benefits that come from injustice and immorality. He continues:
Thrasymachus: . . . You don’t realize that the people who rule over states, if they are true rulers, think of their subjects as sheep to be fleeced, contemplating their own interest day and night. You are so far off in your ideas about justice and injustice you don’t even know that justice really serves the interest of the ruler, the one who is stronger, at the expense of the weaker. Justice is for those who are simpleminded. The unjust, by exercising their power, dominate the just. Those who are ruled serve the interest and happiness of those who rule rather than their own. The just always lose to the unjust. Consider the world of business. In private contracts, whenever the unjust form a partnership with the just they come out on top. When the partnership is dissolved, the just person never walks away with more than the unjust. Or take their dealings with the state. When there is an income tax, the just will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income. When it’s time to get paid, the one gains nothing and the other gains a lot. Or, see what happens when they hold office. The just person neglects private affairs, and, being just, gets nothing out of public service. Just people wind up being hated by friends and acquaintances, because they refuse to bend or break the law to serve themselves. But all this is reversed in the case of the unjust person. I’m talking about someone who makes it big. That’s where the unjust person’s advantage is most obvious. The truth of what I’m saying is clear when we consider the highest form of injustice in which criminals are the happiest, while those who suffer injustice or refuse to do injustice are the most miserable. Tyrants take away other people’s property by fraud and force, not retail but wholesale. They make no distinction between sacred and secular or private and public. Any one of their crimes taken singly would be punished. They would suffer the greatest disgrace and would be called robbers, kidnappers, burglars, swindlers, and thieves. But when they not only take people’s money but also capture them and turn them into slaves, instead of being called dishonorable names, they are considered to be happy and fortunate, not only by citizens but by all who hear of their achievements. People condemn injustice because they fear that they may be its victims, not because they shrink from committing it. I tell you, Socrates, injustice—when practiced on a large enough scale—has more strength, freedom, and mastery than justice. As I said from the beginning, justice is the interest of the stronger, while injustice is our own profit and interest (Plato's Republic, Agora Publications, Kindle Edition, p. 20).
The contrast between this view of political rule presented by Thrasymachus and what President Biden said on July 24 could not be more blatant. From a philosophical perspective, we have a clear choice between what is moral and what is immoral, what is just and what is unjust, and what seeks to benefit a few people and what seeks the common good. The difference between tyranny and democracy could not be better illustrated. This difference is not simply an abstract distinction intended for philosophy classrooms or scholarly journals. From the beginning of this series, I have distinguished between academic philosophy and the “love of wisdom” that is shared across nations, races, cultures, genders, and socioeconomic classes. A good example of a thinker who brings philosophy to life is Robert Reich, a former U.S. Secretary of Labor.
In addition to an impressive series of books and lectures, Reich is currently active on Substack and in other media. I will end this episode with an excerpt from a series he presented to debunk several myths that are often used to fuel an economic philosophy that favors a few people and ignores the rest of humanity. This view of political economy is embraced by the likes of Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and Donald Trump. This way of thinking about might and right is limited to a view of strength that defines it primarily in economic terms and dismisses those who care about justice and the common good. I will defer to Reich’s greater knowledge and experience to explain why economic growth has its limits.
A 10th basic tenet of our system is that economic growth is always good.
This, too, is utter bunk. Unconstrained economic growth is causing such grave harm to the climate that its costs are likely to be greater than the gains.
Mainstream economists don’t measure the costs of growth. They talk about climate change as a so-called “externality,” as if it were just incidental to growth.
But if you consider the deaths and injuries caused by chemical pollution, wildfires, and more intense hurricanes and storms, the costs of growth are huge.
It’s possible to shift from an economy organized around growth to one organized around sustainability. How? Dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels. Limit what can be mined and extracted.
Treat the Earth the same way we treat any limited natural resource: We prevent overfishing by limiting the amounts of fish that can be taken out of the sea over a given period of time.
We should also limit the amount of gunk that can be put into the air, limit how much plastic can be produced, how much of our coastlines can be developed, and how much land can be owned and developed.
In other words, if we accept that the Earth is a finite resource, let’s also agree that infinite growth will destroy the Earth. It’s already on its way (
).
As I continue this series, I will explore additional philosophical principles that relate to the global political contests that pervade the daily news. This project will be especially important between now and November 5. Although philosophical reflection seldom shapes specific decisions and actions in our political life, it might contribute to helping us explain and defend the choices we make at this crucial period in human history.