Ode to Ostriches

Geometry is knowledge of the eternally existent” Pythagoras.

Align Left: Professor                     Center: Student                         Align Right: Gadfly

  1. autos ephe (“he himself said”):
  2. Haven’t they understood yet;
  3. The geometry of many political languages?
  4. How languages structure and create essence,
  5. Because, exogenously, they are structuring;
  6. And also against each-other taking positions?
  7. We know why Pythagoras;
  8. Never found five.
  9. He had not understood;
  10. Heidegger’s dasein.
  11. And now we account for six;
  12. Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence,”
  13. Because of institutions.
  14. Let us recall seven;
  15. [Like the higgs boson],
  16. Political languages begin,
  17. Contesting all other languages,
  18. In any state outside of a specific core’s realm,
  19. Where it excludes all others from legitimate coercion…
  20. Seven is a god’s view of the fighting,
  21. The winning and losing,
  22. Generally specific to a state or society’s location,
  23. On the political map of political languages.
  24. Seven is the map of culture in governance.
  25. And it is a moving picture—our relevance.
  26. Eight…
  27. I’m glad you made an appointment, Kroar.
  28.    Please sit, sit.
  29. We are discussing competition for liberty; its lore?
  30.      Using: “The Republican Critique of Democracy,”
  31.         By Urbinati from Columbia University?[i]
  32.  What, for me here, do you have in store?
  33. What is republicanism’s liberty?
  34. Is that different than liberalism’s liberty?
  35. How different are the core’s of these political languages?
  36. Think of them as dialogues.
  37.  Kroar’s hand motions,
  38. And says with benevolent force:
  39. Different than the liberty promoted,
  40. By the structure and the structuring,
  41. Of authoritarianism’s dystopian liberty?
  42.  
  43. Don’t political languages have unique structures,
  44. Structuring unique ethical closures?
  45. Taking unique positions against one another?
  46. Based on their advocating and admonishments?
  47. Don’t their biases demonstrate indicators?!
  48. By force!
  49. This appointment is for ½ hour, correct?
  50. The clock reads noon.
  51. Yes.
  52. Isaiah Berlin (1958) codified liberalism;
  53.    The concept predominantly suggests that freedom,
  54.        Is measured as non-interference.
  55.  Now Maynor et al. say that codified republicanism;
  56.    The concept predominantly suggests that freedom,
  57.        Is measured as non-domination.
  58. Kroar posed:
  59. So liberalism, as exogenous;
  60. As a structure that is structuring,
  61. Holding political space and taking positions,
  62. Against other exogenous languages’ conditions,
  63. Classifies ethical standards for society and the polity,
  64. Via unique conceptions of liberty.
  65. Non-interference means;
  66. Everyone has an opportunity.
  67. Non-dominations stands;
  68. We all have a fair and equal chance.
  69. Remember this horizon,
  70. and those bonds.
  71. See the multiple traditions,
  72. On heterogeneous Earth.
  73. To consider!
  74.   Republican liberty is a status of the citizen or the freeman,
  75.    versus anyone dominated by the will of another denizen.
  76. Republican liberty is unlike liberal liberty–a natural kind of right;
  77.    Freedom to do what one pleases without interference
  78.      So long as not causing harm to others’ rights…
  79. For republicanism “…entails a legal order that is
  80.    Based on a constitutional system of control,
  81.     That limits state power.”
  82. Skinner (2002) and Pettit (1998);
  83. Urbinati 607.
  84. So republicanism as a structure structuring,
  85. May showcase the citizens’ tracking—
  86. Telling the government how to use tax dollars;
  87. And they-the government–is an open record.
  88. If republicanism enforces non-domination, de jure;
  89. Perhaps, liberalism is the language for,
  90. Democracy and capitalism to find secure harbor.
  91. For republicanism should admonish much,
  92. Exploitation as part of liberal neutrality,
  93. And admonish democracy as political power.
  94. In light of inexcusable inequality.
  95. Republicanism structures local participation,
  96.    As the predominant political organization.
  97. “Short of giving individual people or groups of people,
  98.    A power of veto over the government, it might be possible,
  99.      To give them a power of contestation.”
  100. From Pettit 2001, 164.
  101. Urbinati 607.
  102. Is that party in government,
  103. Or party-in-the-electorate?
  104. Well if the exogenous structure of republicanism exists,
  105. As well as liberalism and authoritarian structures, I submit;
  106. Through time, we should be able to determine,
  107. Their temporal essence.
  108. Their habitus.
  109. Determine political languages’ impact on legislation:
  110. I map out the practical results of collaboration,
  111. And legitimate coercion,
  112. By negation.
  113. Sounds like a 2013 APSA paper to me!
  114. It was submitted,
  115. But I got denied yesterday.
  116. Rarely has a professor grinned,
  117. And then looked so chagrined;
  118. As I just witnessed.
  119. Let’s look more closely at the habitual rules; the lens,
  120.    The regulations for legitimate coercion and collaboration,
  121.      The structuring and position-taking of republicanism.
  122. “In its early stage, neo-republicanism engaged in robust diatribe,
  123.    Against liberalism, claiming in particular that its idea of liberty,
  124.      As non-interference was unequipped to detect and oppose servitude,
  125.        Or dependence” upon the tribes in perpetuity: as attitude!
  126. p. 607.
  127. The prof. really hit “unequipped”
  128. With some serious lip![ii]
  129. …as external structures, in the present;
  130. How do they play the game,
  131. For the right to become legislation—to remain?
  132. “…in fact, republicanism is not only compatible with liberalism,
  133.      But either gave birth to it …
  134. Kalyvas and Katznelson 2008
  135. “or provided modern societies with a conception,
  136.    Of liberty that fits both market economy,
  137.       And an individualistic moral culture”
  138.          Via decrees and degrees…
  139. Spitz 2005.
  140. All still from p. 607,
  141. Now really…
  142. Citizen as identity?
  143. See, your republicanism structure is structuring:
  144.    Democracy and capitalism are potentially,
  145.        Forces of domination that republicanism would limit,
  146.           Nay, admonish; when dominus is in existence!
  147. See Pettit 2001, 137.
  148. Yes. Liberalism’s structure is structuring;
  149. People and government are only responsible,
  150. For providing an equal opportunity,
  151. No matter the variance of domination upon the society,
  152. Or polity.
  153. “There is no ‘definitional connection’ between,
  154.    Liberty as non-domination and ‘democratic control’”
  155.       According to Pettit. Don’t you know?
  156. Pettit 1997, 30
  157. p. 608, please perceive…
  158. Urbinati is usefully seeking:
  159. Republican congruence whereby,
  160. “…the process of opinion and will formation,
  161.  In which citizens participate as equal in rights”
  162. Is the origin of secure liberty.
  163. see Habermas 1998, 249-251.
  164. p. 608.
  165. Urbinati says, “This political condition,
  166. (equal political liberty or isonomia)
  167. Makes liberty from subjection more,
  168. Not less secure because it challenges,
  169. Certain distributions of power, yet,
  170. Not power per se, and its critical function culminates,
  171. In citizens’ claim to remove the factors that prevent
  172. them from living together as political equals;” Urbinati says….
  173. p. 608.
  174. But I suggest that we humans are somewhat ignorant,
  175. To the total exogenous structures;
  176. Of liberalism, republicanism, or even authoritarianism.
  177. All are insecure;
  178. via our ignorance?
  179. Thus I begin my research question:
  180. How are exogenous political language structures
  181. Creating ethics, creating essence, and positively,
  182. Winning the right of legislation?
  183. All of them separate, disparate, opponents!
  184. Kroar is thinking of,
  185. The habitus as political space.
  186. Could he help solve it?
  187. That might result in a fascinating locution.
  188. Kroar waited out the silence,
  189. By eyeing the massive book collection.
  190. I see political languages as exogenous,
  191. Perfect and complete in a rational choice sense,
  192. But to us, we the people, to our legislators;
  193. Political languages are organized as,
  194. Political creative destruction.
  195. From agenda setting to implementation,
  196. We pull from the essence of political contestation;
  197. The fighting between many political languages,
  198. And in the end, perhaps via collaboration,
  199. There is new legislation and new legitimate coercion.
  200. The is a (re)new(ed) identity;
  201. to identify with!
  202. “On the theoretical side,” Urbinati states,
  203.  The question relating to the negative rendering,
  204.   Of republican freedom is whether its anti-
  205.    Or nondemocratic impetus is in the end counterproductive,
  206.     To its very own very valuable goal of achieving and securing,
  207.        Individual liberty as non-domination” page six oh eight.
  208. That’s the essential tension!
  209. Liberalism condemns the republican,
  210. Whom creates equity-institutions,
  211. Not only removing the clawback in capitalism,[iii]
  212. But also not enabling rapacious economic transcendence!
  213. But rapacious capitalism,
  214. is empirically present!
  215. The republican condemns the liberal,
  216. Where greed is not only a possibility,
  217. But it is also a model of efficacious activity!
  218. All are surrounded by gross inequality!
  219. The republican admonishes this society!
  220. Urbinati does relay the republican’s vision of liberty;
  221.   Indeed, “some of the most successful and enduring,
  222.        Arguments against democracy.”
  223. Page 608.
  224. Basically, for your purposes, the language;
  225.   The language of republicanism admonishes:
  226.    “Immoderate” and “doxa” and “voting” in,
  227.       Democratic development.
  228. Local, deliberative democracy,
  229. Says republicanism to me!
  230. Kroar looks like,
  231. Senator McCaskill’s whiplash after,
  232. McConnell filibustering his own bill,
  233. Yes; Kentucky’s distinguished Senator.[iv]
  234. If Hartz was right, and we have evidence that he is correct;
  235.    The language of liberalism is like two blind boxers:
  236.       Democracy and capitalism.
  237. The structuring essence of liberalism;
  238. Holds in virtual equilibrium,
  239. All persons have an equal opportunity,
  240. To develop life, liberty, happiness: property.
  241. Yes! Liberalism emanates from that point!
  242. Specifically liberal liberty.
  243.   Laws must be limited so that the strong win,
  244.    Whoever the strong will become in faction(s)…
  245. So long as negative rights are enforced;
  246.   We all have a right to vote and become President!
  247.    Or we all have a right to become an entrepreneur, instead!
  248. I guess:
  249.        Ethics is a measure,
  250. Of your power, prestige;
  251. “You made it!”
  252. Republicanism advocates antidotes,
  253. Against demagoguery and populism.
  254. However, the former are perfectly legitimate,
  255. As agency and power in collaboration,
  256. and legitimate coercion—by liberalism’s hand!
  257. Liberal neutrality advocates inclusion, indeed!
  258.    But why does Urbinati, my student,
  259.    Find republicanism as instability…?
  260. As citizen, regardless;
  261. I’d rather be a republican!
  262. But people aren’t free,
  263. If ‘re not able to put ‘re heads in the sand!
  264. Freedom for liberalism means that;
  265. Citizens are free to abstain from participating,
  266. in Government!
  267. What kind of citizen,
  268. or democracy,
  269. Is that?
************************************************

This poem uses: Urbinati. 2012. Competing for Liberty: The Republican Critique of DemocracyAmerican Political Science Review / Volume 106 / Issue 03 / August 2012, pp 607-621.

[i] In this particular poem, the professor provides Urbinati’s thesis and the student in office hours is struggling to use this brilliant essay as the basis for a new research paper(s).

[ii] Italics added.

[iii] Clawbacks are common in economics—the person, corporation, or government “claws back” or takes back investment money from the borrower in later years.

[iv] See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGo8E3shaIQ    By “our” I mean as a constituent of America—considering the Senate as the body to ratify treaties…

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Ode to Ostriches

  1. Pingback: Poetry Project: Political Languages « Political Pipeline

  2. Pingback: What are Ed Snowden’s Values? | Political Pipeline

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s