This is Thucydides Night, it seems. I was inspired by pico's
diary.
Thucydides wrote a famous account of civil war. It is horrifying--not in bloody details, but in how prophetic it seems. I (re)read this before last year's election and was stunned at how perfect it was as a description of current politics. This is what civil war and civil discord does to humanity, not just what it did in Greece 2500 years ago, but what is happening in the United States today. This is what civil strife is like . . .
. . . as happens and always will happen while human nature is what it is . . .
In many of these passages, most of you will think, "that's George Bush exactly" (witness the line "As a rule those who were least remarkable for intelligence showed the greater powers of survival.").
Thucydides wasn't attacking one group. And I'm not asking you to think specifically or only about Bush or Republicans. Thucydides was talking generally about civil strife between democratic groups and oligarchic groups in many different city-states. He condemns the actions of both equally, because their actions partly depended on which group was in power. (The first revolution he recounts includes the gruesome murder of oligarchs by democrats.)
Consider, if you want to, Democrat / Republican struggles today. In some places, you might consider of the groupthink within the Democratic Party. Consider whatever you want, and comment below. And consider especially how we can avoid--if we can avoid--the fate Thucydides predicts:
As for ending this state of affairs, no guarantee could be given that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement.
From Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 3.82-5 (after Rex Warner's translation--Penguin Classics)
In times of peace and prosperity cities and individuals alike follow higher standards, because the are not forced into a situation where they have to do what they do not want to do. But war is a stern teacher; in depriving them of the power of easily satisfying their daily wants, it brings most people's minds down to the level of their actual circumstances.
So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occurred late, the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge.
To fit in with the change of events, words had to change their usual meanings.
What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; an ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.
Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition.
Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever.
If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.
Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added the violent fanaticism which came into play once the struggle had broken out. Leaders of parties had programs which appeared admirable . . . but in professing to serve the public interest they were seeking to win the prizes for themselves. In their struggles for ascendancy nothing was barred; terrible indeed were the actions to which they committed themselves, and in taking revenge they went farther still. Here they were deterred neither by claims of justice nor the interests of the state; their one standard was the pleasure of their own party at that particular moment, and so, either by means of condemning their enemies on an illegal vote or by violently usurping power over them, they were always ready to satisfy the hatreds of the hour. Thus neither side had any use for conscientious motives; more interest was shown in those who could produce attractive arguments to justify some disgraceful action. As for the citizens who held moderate views, they were destroyed by both the extreme parties, either for not taking part in the struggle or in envy at the possibility that they might survive.
Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each side viewed the other with suspicion. As for ending this state of affairs, no guarantee could be given that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement; and so, instead of being able to feel confident in others, they devoted their energies to providing against being injured themselves.
As a rule those who were least remarkable for intelligence showed the greater powers of survival. Such people recognized their own deficiencies and the superior intelligence of their opponents; fearing that they might lose a debate or find themselves out-maneuvered in intrigue by their quick-witted enemies, they boldly launched straight into action; while their opponents, overconfident in the belief that they would see what was happening in advance, and not thinking it necessary to seize by force what they could secure by policy, were the more easily destroyed because they were caught off guard.
With the ordinary conventions of civilized life thrown into confusion, human nature . . . showed itself proudly in its true colors, as something incapable of controlling passion, insubordinate to the idea of justice, the enemy to anything superior to itself; for, if it had not been for the pernicious power of envy, men would not so have exalted vengeance above innocence and profit above justice.