To the men and women who inspired this post. May your victories be triumphant and your defeats devastating.

The established academic definition of the word Politics was put forth by Harold Dwight Lasswell. Laswell was a 20th Century political scientist and he defined politics as a struggle for power that ultimately decided “Who Gets What, When, How.” That is a serviceable meaning that gives understanding to the word in its academic form. Yet, somehow I doubt that is what turns people on to politics. In fact, if it were so, if that were the story, many would fail to pay attention. “Who Gets What, When, How” is decided in chambers and behind doors. Politics is a spectator’s sport made for the open field. Power to decide is only the final ends to a much bigger and fascinating story that is routinely played out. Mr. Lasswell’s and those like him missed it altogether. Scientifically sterile, they rushed for a diagnosis and never even glanced at the patient. Lasswell’s dictum severs the story from its true source.

Politics it is just that: A story. Politics is a human story. It is about people — their ambitions, desires, visions, personalities, strengths, weaknesses, triumphs and vulnerabilities. Since it is a contest of the strong willed and the dynamic kind, naturally only the ambitious enter this arena. It is not made for the timid and even its most accomplished contestants will emerge with scars. That is why some unlikely friendships have emerged from inside politics. They see their lot as a fraternity. They hold a sort of boxer’s respect for one another. And rightly so, it takes a person with a unique constitution to compete in such a personal fashion. They are gladiators for our amusement and entertainment. They live to enter that arena, not government. Government is a job. Politics is a behavior. Government is boring. Politics is anything but boring.

(more…)

Every once in a while one gets an insight into the sad state of higher education in the United States.

Back in 2008, when my agent was attempting to market the manuscript of what recently appeared in two companion volumes under the titles Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty: War, Religion, Commerce, Climate, Terrain, Technology, Uneasiness of Mind, the Spirit of Political Vigilance, and the Foundations of the Modern Republic and Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect, he ran into an unexpected snag.

None of the editors at the trade presses he approached had ever even heard of Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu.

That came as a shock to me; and when I repeated the story to other students of the eighteenth century, they expressed amazement and dread.

(more…)