tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1538477881080991285.post1107703158141331252..comments2024-03-26T08:10:52.158-04:00Comments on City Father: Aristocratic ImaginingsCity Fatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17769559147659492086noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1538477881080991285.post-22464687213222136942012-08-20T18:10:25.411-04:002012-08-20T18:10:25.411-04:00City Father,
Your concise summaries of philosophy ...City Father,<br />Your concise summaries of philosophy and history alone make this weblog worth following. Many thanks. <br />Your considered comments about the loss of, "personal and collective public spiritedness" is one I'll have to give some more thought. I don't know if the problem is politicians' negligent lack of appeal to a common interest, or their competitive over-appeal to an illusive, or at least fickle, majority. And I'm not sure just how well landed, learned or bureaucratic "aristocracies", even if only as components of free societies, have served common interests in the past, unless by 'common' we mean interests only of members of their class. <br />To be slightly humorous but mostly serious, I always found the politics of "Yes, Minister" comforting, because two men, one entrenched and the other ambitious, had to agree on a matter before it could move forward, and they both knew this and so found ways to make it work. While they each represented their own constituencies, the focus of their "politics" was not them but their relationship with each other, which they sought to smooth in private rather than to distort in public.<br />In the US, perhaps if the senators were appointed by governors (or some similar arrangement),and the members of the Electoral College were chosen by juries, then perhaps the political climate would turn from being focused primarily on libelous campaigning and towards cooperative conversations, yielding a sort of common interest. Rood Screenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816036539243214384noreply@blogger.com