Hannah Arendt on politics

In the January 30, 2006 issue of The Nation, Jonathan Ree has a long review of three new books of writings by Hannah Arendt (subscription req'd). The following paragraph struck me a particularly appropriate to our upcoming conversation in Austin. Arendt's sentiments seem a little naive in today's climate of political discourse, but there's something important here. - Bill

'[Hannah] Arendt had a distinctly high-minded conception of politics, seeing it not as the bureaucratic administration of collective concerns or a burdensome public duty, still less as a self-interested continuation of warfare by other means. Politics for her was a precious cultural achievement rather than a regrettable social necessity, and it involved the careful maintenance of institutions that enable people to converse freely and respectfully about the world as they see it and as they would like it to be. It was essentially concerned with problems of a kind that will never have perfect solutions, and that therefore require improvisation, invention and endless critical discussion. Politics required us to set aside all sentiments of pride, indignation, shame or resentment, as well as any pretensions to superior expertise, in order to become responsive, intelligent citizens willing to negotiate all our differences on a basis of complete equality. Politics, in short, was the opposite of totalitarianism, and it depended on an open-hearted love for "human plurality"--for people not in the mass or in the abstract but in the distinctness and idiosyncrasy of their lives and the infinite variety of their perceptions. It was more like a serene philosophical seminar than a self-interested struggle for power, and it was not so much a means to human happiness as the pith and substance of it.'

Italic textTish addsItalic text: Politics requires reasoned discussion/discourse--or at least that's my impression from all the Plato and Aristotle and other philosophers I've read. What occurs nowadays, and what is lowering the bar on public/political discourse is admiration of invective--as if it's really, really great for folks to just vent rather than engage their brains before venting. Sure, venting has its place--venting can be cathartic. But "venting" by nature of the term, almost requires an unbound release vs. a reasoned and, for lack of a better word, restrained response. I was very surprised during my Instalanching, which was precipitated by a hyperbolic "vent" that was picked up by Glenn Reynolds, that so many of the responses demanded that they were the reasoned voice and that I had to apologize to a public figure (most were hardly reasoned and were in and of themselves bad arguments--none of which were forwarded by other bloggers, btw). So it seems that even during venting, if the vent isn't properly placed--aimed directly--linked by the proper parties-- it is, in the eyes of some, very bad and the venter should be bullied to self-censor. But the public can't have it both ways--if one side of a debate wants to vent, then the other side must also be allowed equal time to vent. Then where does all the back and forth venting get us? Pretty much nowhere. Any reasoned dialouge gets mired in polemic--a kind of righteous venting--that halts dialouge until someone caves in under the bullying. That, in effect, is a kind of totalitarianism. So, think about it: if we follow what popular culture deems is the way to hold political discourse--thru bullying polemic--then we could be on a slippery slope into some form of totalitarianism, laughing all the way by what we think is a form of theater of the absurd. When public discourse loses reasoned discussion in favor of invective, we all, eventuall, lose.