I've been doing a lot of reading recently into Greek political thought, and that pretty much begins and ends with Plato and his student Aristotle. They shared much in their ideas, but Aristotle differed from Plato widely, seeing him as too radical and seeking a conservative middle course.
Plato's grand ideal for society involved what he deemed to be three radical changes, or "waves," which would institute a perfect government in Athens and cure the social ills he had grown up with. These three changes, in increasing levels of difficulty were women's involvement in politics (but only if they're qualified), communal structure of society abandoning the traditional nuclear family, and the philosopher-king, the highest of thinkers ruling society. Aristotle had deep problems with each one, considering them impracticable based on what he saw as "natural" or "observable."
So how does this relate to America? Well, it's no question that a lot has changed since then and America is certainly no Greece. But I think we can see parallels between the thinking of Democrats, representing the ideals of Plato, and Republicans, countering with the supposed "common sense" arguments of Aristotle.
Let's being where Plato did with the first wave. His idea of women's right to rule was unprecedented in Europe. But it was a common sense idea in many ways; why limit who can rule? It would certainly be better for everyone if the available pool of leaders included as many as possible, thus guaranteeing the best rule much more likely. If we expand that concept further to include all minorities, we'll arrive at Democratic ideals. Plato didn't include slaves (now that would have been revolutionary), but I think he would agree based on his own principle that all minorities should be involved politically in a republic such as ours. Aristotle countered that it was impossible; based on what is "natural," he saw women's place as being in the home, seen and not heard. Based on what is "natural" we could also assume he would feel the same about other minority groups; they've been without power for so long, hence "natural." The line between Democrats and Republicans on minority involvement is every bit as clear. Republicans have fought hard to maintain their "white-male power structure," and just a quick look at a Republican debate line-up furthers the theory. Aristotle and Republicans were both on the wrong side of history on this one; the furthering of rights in a republic is inevitable and good for the health of the nation.
On to the second wave, the abolition of the nuclear family. Say what you will about the ideal in its final realization, no one is advocating it in this country. However, the thought behind it is conducive to liberalism. The reason Plato included it was to ingrain in society the truth that our common good rests on everyone else, that we are an integrated whole and what affects one affects all. If one looks at everyone else as their child or brother or mother, it is infinitely more likely that the common interest will be protected. And once again, Aristotle completely disagreed. He did believe that there was too much greed and miserliness in Athens but that commonality, either in family or property, was once again impracticable, unnatural, and that love of property or family will be diluted if spread out in such a way. He preferred that property be used for public use whenever possible, paralleling the Republican idea that charity be used to cure social ills. We've seen how that works. The Platonic ideal mirrors of course the liberal thesis of the common wealth for the common good, that our wealth, our love, and our property are stronger combined to achieve a common purpose than separate to achieve strictly individual goals. A good short synopsis of the position is that "it takes a village."
The third wave is a little more difficult to peg down within this structure. Plato believed that the best and the brightest weren't the ones who were leading Athens, that rule was in the hands of those not competent to do so. Therefore, he suggested that philosophers, like himself and his mentor Socrates presumably, were the most fit to rule. Aristotle countered that the propertied middle class should rule, as they were in the best position, the middle, to see that the needs of the poor and the rich were met. To Aristotle, and to many today, Plato's position was elitist. But the best defense for his position was stated by himself: who would you want to provide you medical care? A doctor, or just the average joe? Carry that to today. Who best to make laws? A lawyer who's been trained in the law or that same average joe (or an actor)? The fact is Republicans have had a difficult time, especially of late, picking wildly incompetent people, not suited for the line of work, whose failures have been massive. Democrats have held themselves to a higher level of employment qualifications; they tend not to hire actors and pony show judges to important posts for the nation.
What was true in ancient Greece is true today; those least likely to adopt natural change are those less likely to provide efficient leadership. Aristotle the conservative was on the wrong side of history on many issues, just as the Republicans are today, preferring instead to roll back the clocks to a time when we were less free. They've stood in the way of every positive, even revolutionary, change that we've seen and which have helped make the republic more secure, more representative and better for all.
cross-posted at Brad's Brain