The argument over pluralism

Paul Pierson: Goodbye to Pluralism

"... The argument over pluralism remains sufficiently familiar that the broad contours need only to be quickly recapped here. Pluralists such as Dahl and Lindblom maintained that power was widely dispersed in modern polities (Dahl 1961; Dahl and Lindblom 1953). They stressed that the existence of a variety of political resources and the potential access to diverse venues of political activity (especially in the American separation-of-powers system) prevented the concentration of power. Influence was not equally distributed, but it was widely dispersed.

Critics countered that this analysis rested on an overly narrow conception of power (Bachrach and Baratz 1962; Crenson 1971; Lukes 1974) – specifically, forms of influence that were visible in open contestation over political alternatives. The anti-pluralists insisted that this open contestation was only the “first” dimension of power. They argued that there were other dimensions that were less visible but more significant. Typically, these are called the second and third dimensions.

The second dimension refers to cases where competing interests are recognized (at least by the powerless) but open contestation does not occur because of power asymmetries...

Finally, critics of pluralism pointed to what is typically termed the third dimension concerns ideational elements of power. Powerful actors can gain advantage by inculcating views in others that are to their advantage. In essence, this involves what Marx termed false consciousness. Those with influence over the media, schools, churches, think tanks, or other key cultural institutions may foster beliefs in others (about what is desirable or possible) that serve the interests of the powerful. Again, what looks like consensus on the surface may reflect underlying inequalities of influence.

I am going to say nothing more about this third dimension today. This is not because I think it is unimportant – on the contrary I’m increasingly convinced that it is very important – but because we will have plenty on our plate without getting to the thorny issues involved in the study of power and ideology..."

File under: relevance of Marx

Wouldn't you think

Katherine Krueger: Trump on Aide's Battery Charge: Why Didn't Reporter Scream If He Hurt Her

Trump: "... Wouldn't you think she would have yelled out a scream or something is she has bruises on her arm?"

'Cause if a woman didn't scream nothing bad happened. No, not at all.

Recently Talking Points Memo

Recently Talking Points Memo has become one of my everyday reads. Josh Marshall's blogposts are especially keen.

One of my history professors always starts the semester with a brief discussion of why ancient Roman history is worth studying. His answer is that ancient Rome provides a model of how empires and republics function, and fall. The extent that the US could be considered an empire, or that presidential politics can be compared to ancient Rome, is open to question, but recent rhetoric, violence, and the discussion surrounding both makes me consider the Gracchi brothers.

Josh Marshall:

"... On each of these fronts, the slow accumulation of nonsense and paranoia - 'debt' to use our metaphor - built into a massive trap door under the notional GOP leadership with a lever that a canny huckster like Trump could come in and pull pretty much whenever. This is the downside of building party identity around a package of calculated nonsense and comically unrealizable goals..."

I want the term "GOP crazy-debt" to be a thing.

Kevin Grier:

"... But Trump is showing me/us that a large chunk of US adults (what like 25-30% or so?) are racist, sexist, xenophobic, economically illiterate morons..."

Michael Cooper:

"... When you're earning $32,000 a year and haven't had a decent vacation in over a decade, it doesn't matter who Trump appoints to the U.N., or if he poisons America's standing in the world, you just want to win again, whoever the victim, whatever the price..."

Josh Marshall:

"... The climate Trump is creating at his events is one that not only disinhibits people who normally act within acceptable societal norms. He is drawing in, like moths to a flame, those who most want to act out on their animosities, drives and beliefs. It is the kind of climate where someone will eventually get killed..."

Plutarch:

"... But after Mucius began once more to summon the tribes to the vote, none of the customary forms could be observed because of the disturbance that arose on the outskirt of the throng, where there was crowding back and forth between the friends of Tiberius and their opponents, who were striving to force their way in and mingle with the rest. Moreover, at this juncture Fulvius Flaccus, a senator, posted himself in a conspicuous place, and since it was impossible to make his voice heard so far, indicated with his hand that he wished to tell Tiberius something meant for his ear alone. Tiberius ordered the crowd to part for Flavius, who made his way up to him with difficulty, and told him that at a session of the senate the party of the rich, since they could not prevail upon the consul to do so, were purposing to kill Tiberius themselves, and for this purpose had under arms a multitude of their friends and slaves.

Tiberius, accordingly, reported this to those who stood about him, and they at once girded up their togas, and breaking in pieces the spear-shafts with which the officers keep back the crowd, distributed the fragments among themselves, that they might defend themselves against their assailants. Those who were farther off, however, wondered at what was going on and asked what it meant. Whereupon Tiberius put his hand to his head, making this visible sign that his life was in danger, since the questioners could not hear his voice. But his opponents, on seeing this, ran to the senate and told that body that Tiberius was asking for a crown; and that his putting his hand to his head was a sign having that meaning. All the senators, of course, were greatly disturbed, and Nasica demanded that the consul should come to the rescue of the state and put down the tyrant. The consul replied with mildness that he would resort to no violence and would put no citizen to death without a trial; if, however, the people, under persuasion or compulsion from Tiberius, should vote anything that was unlawful, he would not regard this vote as binding. Thereupon Nasica sprang to his feet and said: "Since, then, the chief magistrate betrays the state, do ye who wish to succour the laws follow me." With these words he covered his head with the skirt of his toga and set out for the Capitol. All the senators who followed him wrapped their togas about their left arms and pushed aside those who stood in their path, no man opposing them, in view of their dignity, but all taking to flight and trampling upon one another.

Now, the attendants of the senators carried clubs and staves which they had brought from home; but the senators themselves seized the fragments and legs of the benches that were shattered by the crowd in its flight, and went up against Tiberius, at the same time smiting those who were drawn up to protect him. Of these there was a rout and a slaughter, and as Tiberius himself turned to fly, someone laid hold of his garments. So he let his toga go and fled in his tunic. But he stumbled and fell to the ground among some bodies that lay in front of him. As he strove to rise to his feet, he received his first blow, as everybody admits, from Publius Satyreius, one of his colleagues, who smote him on the head with the leg of a bench; to the second blow claim was made by Lucius Rufus, who plumed himself upon it as upon some noble deed. And of the rest more than three hundred were slain by blows from sticks and stones, but not one by the sword..."

Appian:

"... The sword was never carried into the assembly, and there was no civil butchery until Tiberius Gracchus, while serving as a tribune and bringing forward new laws, was the first to fall a victim to internal commotion; and with him many others, who were crowded together at the Capitol round the temple, were also slain. Sedition did not end with this abominable deed. Repeatedly the parties came into open conflict, often carrying daggers; and from time to time in the temples, or the assemblies, or the forum, some tribune, or praetor, or consul, or candidate for these offices, or some person otherwise distinguished, would be slain. Unseemly violence prevailed almost constantly, together with shameful contempt for law and justice. As the evil gained in magnitude open insurrections against the government and large warlike expeditions against their country were undertaken by exiles, or criminals, or persons contending against each other for some office or military command. There arose chiefs of factions quite frequently, aspiring to supreme power, some of them refusing to disband the troops entrusted to them by the people, others even hiring forces against each other on their own account, without public authority. Whenever either side first got possession of the city, the opposition party made war nominally against their own adversaries, but actually against their country. They assailed it like an enemy's capital, and ruthless and indiscriminate massacres of citizens were perpetrated. Some were proscribed, others banished, property was confiscated, and prisoners were even subjected to excruciating tortures..."

Wikipedia:

"... Harriet I. Flower and Jurgen Von Ungern-Sternberg argue for an exact start date of 10 December 134 BC, with the inauguration of Gracchus as tribune, or alternately, when he first issued his proposal for land reform in 133 BC. Appian of Alexandria wrote that this political crisis was "the preface to... the Roman civil wars". Velleius commentated that it was Gracchus' unprecedented standing for re-election as tribune in 132 BC, and the riots and controversy it engendered as the start of a crisis:

This was the beginning of civil bloodshed and of the free reign [sic] of swords in the city of Rome. From then on justice was overthrown by force and the strongest was preeminent.

— Velleius, Vell. Pat. 2.3.3–4, translated and cited by Harriet I. Flower

In any case, the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC marked "a turning point in Roman history and the beginning of the crisis of the Roman Republic."

Barbette S. Spaeth specifically refers to "the Gracchan crisis at the beginning of the Late Roman Republic"..."