I have come to think of it this way-- the difference between Governance and Rule.
The nature and objective of Governance is a general agreement, however imperfectly executed, that the allocation and exercise of social and political power will be constrained within a framework of limits and obligations adhered to, if not by full agreement, then at least by mutual acquiescence. We put up with the vexations and annoyances of Governance because we agree that everyone under its umbrella has rights and privileges we are bound to honor, just everyone else is bound to honor our own rights and privileges. In Governance, we govern ourselves.
Governance is not the same as equality, by the way, or necessarily even fairness commonly understood. A more common but imprecise framing of Governance is "rule of law". Or a system of justice, where "justice" is understood as the old definition "giving each his due". Personally I want the circle of Governance to be wide, flat, and highly reciprocal, but it can be top down and hierarchical.
The nature and objective of Rule is quite different. Rule excludes others from the umbrella of Governance. Rule says that I can treat those outside my circle of Governance however I like. Rule says I am not bound to limit my conduct to those ruled except as I happen to please.
Governance is created by mutual effort. Rule is imposed. In Governance, we cooperate with others to govern our selves. In Rule, we may combine, but only to rule others.
I think circles of governance can exist that also seek to rule, by excluding others from the round. This is what has happened to the Republican/MAGA base.
As a recovering Pelagian, I think I agree with Augustine that the default tendency of human nature, unregulated, seeks to rule, not to govern. People can be trained to participate in governance, but most of them only by habit, not by personal inclination, and certainly not through philosophical deliberation about what will maximize total utility; Habits of governance are hard to build, and easy to break down. They are particularly vulnerable to fear and despair.
This is what I think has happened to the MAGA base-- they have been convinced, by motivated reasoning and outright mendacity, that non-Red America is no longer safe to include in their sphere of Governance.
What stands outside the circle of Governance necessarily stands in a relation of rule or be ruled. Having excluded non-Red America from their circle, it follows therefore that for MAGA world, and now increasingly all Republicans, rule or surrender is their only option.
Shorter version: "..to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Also, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
As opposed to being ruled., as during the time of King George III. Furthermore, the MAGA circle is very small, brooking no dissent from accepted dogma. The circle is red is yet another sense, having more in common in terms of rule with the two "red" countries they denigrate constantly.
It does affirm that while the two parties used to both lean toward governance, and sometimes try their best, and include statesmen in each party, now one party seeks only to rule the other, or Other. And your final paragraph seems equally to apply to Putin's Russia. It also points toward Governance requiring a/the social contract, norms and redlines of sorts, agreement on some basic facts or rights and duties. That has been completely blown apart the past several years.
This is I think an answer to JVL’s anguished question, why party identification, which ought to be a subordinate affiliation preference within the ambit of the overarching general governance ideal, seems to have become not instrumental in service to a shared governance project but the very thing to be served at the expense of all.
I think it’s not really anything like what we used to call party identity at work. It’s that we don’t even want such parties any more because we’ve rejected governance itself— not even regretfully, as something we’d like to have as a desirable state of affairs, but as an inherently misguided and actually dangerous illusion, a lie and trick implacable enemies want to use to crush and enslave us. There can be no mutual governance with an existential menace. To save ourselves, we must contract the circle of compromise and law to apply only to those who truly belong within it, and the cast the others into the outer darkness.
Party ID is now not something you can choose to serve wider goals. Your party ID is just another word for which phylum you are— predator or prey, host or parasite— Protestant or catholic— Muslim or Hindu— Jew or Aryan.
I have come to think of it this way-- the difference between Governance and Rule.
The nature and objective of Governance is a general agreement, however imperfectly executed, that the allocation and exercise of social and political power will be constrained within a framework of limits and obligations adhered to, if not by full agreement, then at least by mutual acquiescence. We put up with the vexations and annoyances of Governance because we agree that everyone under its umbrella has rights and privileges we are bound to honor, just everyone else is bound to honor our own rights and privileges. In Governance, we govern ourselves.
Governance is not the same as equality, by the way, or necessarily even fairness commonly understood. A more common but imprecise framing of Governance is "rule of law". Or a system of justice, where "justice" is understood as the old definition "giving each his due". Personally I want the circle of Governance to be wide, flat, and highly reciprocal, but it can be top down and hierarchical.
The nature and objective of Rule is quite different. Rule excludes others from the umbrella of Governance. Rule says that I can treat those outside my circle of Governance however I like. Rule says I am not bound to limit my conduct to those ruled except as I happen to please.
Governance is created by mutual effort. Rule is imposed. In Governance, we cooperate with others to govern our selves. In Rule, we may combine, but only to rule others.
I think circles of governance can exist that also seek to rule, by excluding others from the round. This is what has happened to the Republican/MAGA base.
As a recovering Pelagian, I think I agree with Augustine that the default tendency of human nature, unregulated, seeks to rule, not to govern. People can be trained to participate in governance, but most of them only by habit, not by personal inclination, and certainly not through philosophical deliberation about what will maximize total utility; Habits of governance are hard to build, and easy to break down. They are particularly vulnerable to fear and despair.
This is what I think has happened to the MAGA base-- they have been convinced, by motivated reasoning and outright mendacity, that non-Red America is no longer safe to include in their sphere of Governance.
What stands outside the circle of Governance necessarily stands in a relation of rule or be ruled. Having excluded non-Red America from their circle, it follows therefore that for MAGA world, and now increasingly all Republicans, rule or surrender is their only option.
Shorter version: "..to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Also, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
As opposed to being ruled., as during the time of King George III. Furthermore, the MAGA circle is very small, brooking no dissent from accepted dogma. The circle is red is yet another sense, having more in common in terms of rule with the two "red" countries they denigrate constantly.
Yes. And of course as Samuel Johnson famously observed, “the loudest yelps for Liberty [were] heard from the drivers of Negroes”.
The blessings of liberty and the miseries of tyranny all fall in or out of the perimeter we draw of the rule of law.
Wow. Brilliant. Thank you for this.
It does affirm that while the two parties used to both lean toward governance, and sometimes try their best, and include statesmen in each party, now one party seeks only to rule the other, or Other. And your final paragraph seems equally to apply to Putin's Russia. It also points toward Governance requiring a/the social contract, norms and redlines of sorts, agreement on some basic facts or rights and duties. That has been completely blown apart the past several years.
Again, THANK you for this exposition.
This is I think an answer to JVL’s anguished question, why party identification, which ought to be a subordinate affiliation preference within the ambit of the overarching general governance ideal, seems to have become not instrumental in service to a shared governance project but the very thing to be served at the expense of all.
I think it’s not really anything like what we used to call party identity at work. It’s that we don’t even want such parties any more because we’ve rejected governance itself— not even regretfully, as something we’d like to have as a desirable state of affairs, but as an inherently misguided and actually dangerous illusion, a lie and trick implacable enemies want to use to crush and enslave us. There can be no mutual governance with an existential menace. To save ourselves, we must contract the circle of compromise and law to apply only to those who truly belong within it, and the cast the others into the outer darkness.
Party ID is now not something you can choose to serve wider goals. Your party ID is just another word for which phylum you are— predator or prey, host or parasite— Protestant or catholic— Muslim or Hindu— Jew or Aryan.