Skip to main content

Constitutional Cycles

Image result for cycles of history

For a long time, I thought of US politics in terms of a 30 year cycle.  I thought of this as the "short cycle" of two, for I also had and still have a long cycle theory. 

But the short cycle was specifically keyed to Presidential election, so it manifested itself in 32 or 28 year intervals (since 30 is not divisible by four). 

Pursuant to the short cycle theory I compared President Obama's election in 2008 to the election of other relatively obscure figures who carried on the impetus of a reform movement past its prime. A haberdasher in 1948 was elected as the last hurrah for the New Deal. Four years later he bowed out, letting Adlai Stevenson take the fall for Eisenhower's victory. Twenty eight years after 1948 brings us to 1976, when a peanut farmer became President as a final upsurge of New Frontier/Great Society liberalism. Four years later he was mugged by an Ayatollah on the way to defeat by Ronald Reagan. 

Thirty-two years from 1976 brings us to 2008. So that cyclical theory led me to the expectation that Barack Obama would be a one termer, defeated by a conservative Republican in 2012. It didn't happen. So maybe in my efforts to understand events THIS year I should forget that and fall back on the theory concerning longer cycles.

According to this, there are three great periods of constitutional equilibrium in US history, punctuated by periods of turmoil. Here's a quick cheat sheet (ignoring for the moment the fact that the colonial pre-history of the US analogously breaks down into two imperial periods, separated by a time of great tumult in the 1680s set off by the Glorious Revolution in the motherland.)

1775 - 1787          TUMULT
1787 - 1860          First Republic (73 years)
1861 - 1865          TUMULT
1866 - 1929          Second Republic (63 years)
1930 - 1937          TUMULT 
1938 - 2008          Third Republic (70 years).

On this hypothesis, we have lived through a period of tumult, and this Presidential election will presumably lay the groundwork for a distinctive Fourth Republic. 

If a Democratic candidate is elected President, whether it be a he or a she, then one can see the outlines of the Fourth Republic and its differences from the Third. In either case, we will think of this period as the tricky transition of the US into a Western European style social democracy. The Supreme Court decisions upholding Obamacare and marriage equality have a long life ahead of them as important precedents -- the next couple of SCOTUS appointments will be Justices inclined with the majority there. As important, the decisions creating a religious exemption for the insurance mandate and deregulating campaign finance will have a rather brief life ahead of them, and the decisions reversing them will be  the key fourth-republic-defining precedents. 

I don't see any possibility of a Republican victory in this election. Of course, I'm often wrong but that by itself doesn't establish the contrary proposition. 

There is a third possibility: an independent candidate's victory. What will that mean? Either more tumult or a very different Fourth Republic. Tomorrow I'll say a few words about how this might come about.  


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …