THE QUARREL OF THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS

It was good news to see four sold out concerts of the Pittsburgh Symphony performing Beethoven’s 9^th symphony (Ode to Joy) at Heinz Hall. It was disheartening to see many of the patrons using walkers and hearing aids with few twenty somethings in attendance. One would expect that the Symphony’s performance highlighting the 50^th anniversary of the Rolling Stones rock album Let It Bleed, later in July, will show the opposite demographics.  Arguably, to many millennials, the Rolling Stones are interesting but ancient history and Beethoven is unapproachable. 

The popular music scene is bursting with unknown young artists, many with little formal training. The trick is to post new tunes online that have been cobbled together electronically in the family basement.  If conditions are right the song will go viral with millions of “hits” in a matter of days.  The artist becomes an instant celebrity. Similar success stories are now common among painters and writers who utilize social media and the internet to gain instant recognition.

How is it possible that our culture can accommodate both classical and this modern wave of “streaming” creative arts?  Will the old eventually give way to the new, with the world’s symphonies forced to play only modern music to survive? Will classical literature, art and music appreciation classes disappear from college curriculums? Will Shakespeare festivals like Stratford Ontario, now featuring lightweight musicals along with the Bard, eventually feature no Shakespeare at all?  

 In many respects our culture is experiencing a new “quarrel of the ancients and the moderns.” This term was first used to explain a literary and artistic debate in the early 17^th century. Sir William Temple argued against the modern position in his essay On Ancient and Modern Learning, invoking the famous quote: “we see more only because we are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.”  In support of the modern position, humanists like Francis Bacon argued that the three greatest inventions of his time (printing press, gunpowder, the compass) would invariably prove the superiority of the “Moderns”.

The “Ancients” supported the merits of the philosophers, authors, and painters from antiquity contending that a Modern could do no better than imitate them. The “Moderns” countered with the argument that modern scholarship allowed man to surpass the Ancients in knowledge and therefore the ability to create.

Classical artists seem to be strongly on the side of the Ancients. No one would doubt that Mozart benefited from Bach, Beethoven learned from Mozart and that all classical composers post Beethoven learned from him.  Picasso once proclaimed that: “Cezanne is the father of us all.” Picasso spent years on a large painting that was his tribute to his Spanish muse. The work is a cubist interpretation of Velazquez’s major Renaissance effort, “The Guardian”.

It is interesting that when civilization is at its lowest place, the Ancients are often invoked. Christianity in the Middle Ages sought to erase “pagan” Hellenistic and Roman thought and creativity from common memory, plunging Christendom into the dark.  Scholars throughout Europe, through the exchange of letters, rediscovered ancient philosophy, art and secular writings, leading to the Renaissance.

American legal philosophy, developed from the English common law has always sided with the Ancients. The guiding principle of “stare decisis” meaning: “to stand by that which is decided” compels Judges to follow precedent in their legal decisions.  Similarly, conservative political thought calls for careful deliberations before making changes to policies that have stood the test of time.

When it comes to literature, the advocate of the Ancient’s position has long been Harold Bloom. This 90 something Yale professor has written volumes to support his position that Shakespeare and Dante are the gold standard, with all literature that came after imitations of the original.  Bloom believes that: “there always will be incessant readers who will go on reading the great books of the past, despite the proliferation of fresh technologies for distraction.”  He points out that: “such a reader does not read for easy pleasure, but rather to enlarge a solitary existence.”

This point raised by Bloom opens another door into understanding our renewed quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns. Our modern culture thrives on change. It creates new goods and services, and teaches us to want them. It adds new technologies, things and ideas at an increasingly rapid rate. The amount of cultural change experienced in America between 1950 and 2019 is far greater than the amount of change experienced in the entire eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 

New works of music, literature and painting play to our instant gratification and require little effort on our part to appreciate. While all are in some respect “creative”, few are derivative or build on what has come before.

Today’s internet driven culture is clearly on the side of the Moderns. Nevertheless, if history offers any lessons, there will come a time when our culture experiences a backlash against the superficial, sensory overload of what passes for the modern.

While time buries almost all human effort, certain creative works of genius will always prevail. No doubt, some of this genius will result from modern sources. But it would not surprise me to find the children of our grandchildren “rediscovering” what the Ancients have to offer in enriching their understanding of what it means to be human. 

 

POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP IS THE NEW FUNDAMENTALISM

  

Fundamentalism has long been part of religious and political thought.  For centuries, faith was an all or nothing proposition. Strict adherence to religious texts and dogma were maintained. There could be no compromise as the great monotheistic religions sought to rule the world. Within faiths, Catholic fought Protestant and Sunni fought Shia because of fundamentalist schisms.  The Jewish people were persecuted by everyone. 

In political thought, the 18^th and 19^th centuries are remembered for ideological battles between those who favored conservative monarchies versus fledgling liberal democratic leadership. The 20^th century featured fundamentalist battle lines drawn between fascism, communism and democracy.  This was followed by the all or nothing cold war battle for world domination played out between Soviet communism and democratic states.

On the other hand, American political parties in our pluralist democracy were most often open to divergent views and welcomed large tents which could accommodate both moderates and ideologues.  As an example, Northern Democrats proceeding the Civil War were divided into war Democrats who followed Lincoln and peace Democrats who sought a complete accommodation with the southern states.  

Recently, things have changed. The democratic tension between individual freedom on the right and equality on the left has hardened the political parties into fundamentalist like organizations.  

A new type of political zealot has replaced the moderate actor willing to considerate alternative positions. Partisan tribes have been formed that demand allegiance to a narrow set of ideological political views. Within this context facts and rational thought are unimportant. 

There is a party line and the partisan members willingly accept the rigid dogma it entails. In my view the irrationalism of Donald Trump and his followers has much in common with Abbie Hoffman and the 1960s new left, with an opposite ideological spin. Even Ronald Reagan was not above compromise with his political opponents.

 Partisan ideology is encouraged, reinforced and made more reasonable by cable news and social media.  Mass media provides the fire and brimstone sermons of partisan politics. Within both the Republican and Democratic parties, it is more important to win each conflict, which is non-negotiable, than to understand the positions of the other.

The modern day political partisan is unwilling to think rationally.  Remaining partisan requires little effort and is emotionally satisfying.  Conversely, rationality involves stepping outside one’s comfort zone to view the big picture, in all of its messiness and shades of gray.  Rational political thought is choice with a conscious, not a blind eye toward conflicting positions.

Social science studies have shown that even a smarter, better-educated electorate does not produce less partisan views.  Instead, political participants armed with facts are simply better equipped to argue their own side of the conflict.  In one study this was true for both progressives and conservatives. See Dan Kahan:  Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, 4 Judgment & Decision Making 407 (2013)

I have decided that avoiding political partisan fundamentalism is largely an individual decision and requires some effort.  For my part, an exercise in respectful tolerance of the views of Trump supporters, with whom I generally disagree, is the key. I begin by making a list of Trump positions that are rational, including the following:  1) Trump has taken steps that have improved the economy. 2) The Mueller Report has detailed a strong case in concluding that the President and his campaign were not complicit in a conspiracy with Russia. 3) Democrats need to cooperate with Republicans to solve the border crisis. 4) The United States should withdraw from further engagement in the Middle East.  5) Taking a strong stand against China is in America’s best interests.  Taking the time and effort to understand these positions does not mean I will ultimately agree.  It does make my decision making more rational.

Once I have completed this exercise it is easier to resist the Washington generated bitter war between the two well-funded, sharply defined tribes.   It becomes clear that each has their own partisan machines for generating evidence and their own enforcers of orthodoxy.  I choose to make up my own mind and stake out my political positions from a more rational place.

My progressive friends would argue that such an exercise gives credence to the “others” and gains no respectful tolerance in return.  My answer is that politics should not be an all or nothing proposition. Trump voters and progressives alike share many of the same goals and we all love America.

If we seek to understand those who disagree with us, even if a final accommodation seems difficult to achieve, something valuable has been gained. If the Trump administration adopts a rational policy with which, after careful reflection, progressives agree, we should not attack the policy in the name of partisan politics.  Rationality must begin somewhere.

AMERICA IS NOT MOVING TO THE FAR RIGHT

Much has been made of the Trump presidency and of illiberal democracies around the world resurrecting the menace of far right political views.  Under this theory, voters in this country and abroad have been converted to the ideology of the far right, including the rebirth of political institutions from the 1930s that favor authoritarian leaders and permit them to undermine the press and the courts.  Some liberals are even espousing the age-old default position that the masses asserting populism are “up to no good” and can no longer be trusted to deliver equality, liberty and justice for all.

I believe this position is overblown and misses the point of how Trump and others have won elections.  First, it is important to remember that no right wing populist has come to power anywhere in Western Europe or North America without the full cooperation of traditional conservative elites.  In our country, Republican voters did what they always do and voted for the representative of their party. For Republicans and many Independents, Hillary Clinton was unelectable. What took place was predictable and normal.  It was the candidate who was not normal, not the electorate.

Second, the election of Donald Trump was not the enthusiastic endorsement of a Ronald Reagan or an LBJ. Those who voted for him were compelled to overlook character flaws in favor of their anti-abortion or other conservative policy positions. Many of Trump’s illiberal attacks against the media and the courts did not appear until after the election.  There is no evidence that many of those who voted for him support these authoritarian right wing views.

Third, the mid-term elections demonstrated a strong moderate and left of moderate current in the American electorate.  The trend in American political history has always been that following any period of extremism the pendulum swings back toward the middle. It is my view that the 2020 election will follow this inclination and elect a moderate Democrat to the presidency.

Fourth, In America, the appearance of acts of right wing violence and rhetoric since Trump’s election are representative of the perspective of a small minority, unlike troubling reports from parts of Germany and Eastern Europe.  The incidents in America, fueled by domestic and foreign social media and by the President’s own conduct, have encouraged America’s fringe right wing to take action.  There has not been a significant shift in public opinion in support of right wing views.

Lastly, the American democratic experience of a constitutional republic balanced by three branches of government, runs deep and strong. There is no appetite to permit Trump, his family and wealthy political supporters to gain economic advantage through the presidency, or to label non-Trump supporters as “enemies of the people”, or to permit the executive branch to brazenly act in unaccountable ways.

Progressives would do well to stop trying to analyze what caused Trump and to plan for the future, post Trump. Moreover, the average voter is not interested in hearing about revisionist history and how our founding fathers got our institutions all wrong because of racism and sexism.  While there may be some historical truth to these claims, it is counterproductive.  We need to stress what the founders got right and why it is worth preserving for the next generation of Americans.

Trump alone is responsible for breaking the office of the presidency into an unrecognizable institution.  Much of the damage can be traced to his self-promotion and to self-preservation, not a grand plan of right wing authoritarian takeover, as was the case in Russia, Hungary and Turkey.  The American electorate will soon make things right.