In his recent article, “Strategic Alliance between India and the US Begins to Materialize,” dealing with an impending arms deal between the US, Pakistan and India – the latter two “natural enemies,” one is inclined to say, but hey, why should that stop us while there’s dough to be made? – Sekhar raises an interesting distinction. He speaks of “rogue states.” On the one hand, our own being cited as a prime example, and forms of government on the other (again, ours being billed as the most democratic of the bunch.)
Offhand, this ought to raise a flag – a rogue state and a democracy aren’t exactly like ham ‘n eggs – but we’ve learned to live with incongruities, I suppose. (“Cognitive dissonance” is the scholastic term.) What’s of equal interest, however, the article was barely noticed by the usually astute BC crowd: as of now, the comments thread has been unusually sparse, thirteen in all. It’s not exactly surprising since it’s a well known truism that most of our blind spots are under our very noses. Well, the article at hand is a case in point and in vein perhaps, but try I must, I’d like to remedy this oversight and draw attention to some of the implications. Unwittingly perhaps, whether by sheer happenstance or divine intervention, Sekhar had stumbled upon a truly revolutionary proposition in the annals of political philosophy, a proposition I was literally stunned by because it’s so patently true and yet so elusive for the fact: the state and the government aren’t the same.
Never mind definitions! Etymology is misleading too because concepts, as C.S. Lewis (Studies in Words) has ably argued, change over time, acquiring different meanings and connotations. Definitions and etymology, contrary to what our esteemed grammar editor might say, are of limited usefulness, only a starting point, telling us what we already know. A more radical approach is needed.
Turns of phrase aren’t reliable either and are apt to mislead. “Head of state,” for one, is a synonym for the executive. And yet, we do speak of a “government being formed” while the state, nominally at least, is believed to exist. The hung Parliament in this year’s UK’s election cycle is a case in point. The present Iraqi stalemate, seven-months old and counting, is another. And then, we may also recall the Clinton presidency during which, for budgetary reasons, “the government” was suspended for a week or so (which time period, by the way, coincides with the Monica Lewinsky incident). So there’s definitely meat to the distinction; what remains is to work it out.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Alan Kurtz
You might at least have hyperlinked your reference to Sekhar's Strategic Alliance between India and the US Begins to Materialize.
2 - Doug Hunter
Interesting, I'll give you my thoughts.
The state is religion stripped down without the mythical trappings. Like religion, it's a buffer and an interface between humanity and the absolute power and awesome responsibility that we possess. The power that was formerly personified in god, is now held by the state. Ultimately, the state has used every horrible device and facet dreamed up when necessary to preserve itself and will again.
It is indeed our fear that keeps us beholden to these institutions. We may say it's fear of what others would do without guidance from above, but I think it's just as much fear of having the power and responsibility ourselves, what we might do and how we might screw it up. These construct, formerly religion and now the state, create tidy little safe slots with clearly delineated channels of power.
3 - Alan Kurtz
Trying to think of a single word to describe this article, I came up with bloviate, which in its way is perfect. However, one word alone does not suffice. After all, considerable effort must've been expended in this enterprise.
I therefore enter into evidence H.L. Mencken's immortal critique of President Warren G. Harding's inaugural address on March 4, 1921:
"On the question of the logical content of Dr. Harding's harangue, I do not presume to have views. But when it comes to the style of the great man's discourse, I can speak with somewhat more competence, for I have earned most of my livelihood for 20 years past by translating the bad English of a multitude of authors into measurably better English.
"Thus qualified professionally, I rise to pay my small tribute to Dr. Harding. Setting aside a college professor or two, and a half dozen dipsomaniacal newspaper reporters, he takes first place in my Valhalla of literati.
"That is, he writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges … of tattered washing on the line … of stale bean soup … of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.
"It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish and crawls insanely up to the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash."
Actually, I don't think Roger's article is quite that good. But then, we haven't yet seen Part Two. (Good lord, how many parts are in store?)
4 - Satish Chandra
I am India's expert in strategic defence and the father of India's strategic program, including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan means the coast-to-coast destruction of the U.S. by India; see my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title.
Russia and the U.S. are allies.
5 - Alan Kurtz
Whoa, check out the dude's web site! Satish Chandra Curriculum Vitae (what follows is directly quoted, with omissions for brevity):
Highlights of Achievements
1. He can reasonably claim to be the foremost behavior scientist in the United States.
2. Laboratory research with rats, using operant conditioning procedures, discovering a new effect drastically modifying biological clocks..
3. A new theory of relativity.
4. His theory of money is in the process of revolutionizing Economics and public finance.
From 1975 on, he informally advised Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on India's domestic policies and international affairs. He is India's expert in strategic defense and the father of India's strategic program including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program.
He is particularly interested in seeing people who have been in psychotherapy before but whose issues have remained unresolved.
Can Roger bring 'em out of the woodwork or what?
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
I'll heartily agree that the state and the government are not the same - after all, Germany was still Germany from the Weimar Republic to the ending days of National Socialism. Come to think of it, that's not so different (other than the amount of time involved) from the evolution of the Roman Republic to Imperial Rome. Remember Rove's hoped-for "permanent Republican majority"? Such a prospect should keep anyone with a decent understanding of history nervously awake at night.
But are you honestly trying to suggest the existence of a state based on anarchy? I hope not. Such is every bit as impossible as the supposed communist utopia or the supposed libertarian utopia.
"Death and taxes". Such will always be, right? Roger, you will always, always, always be subject to a government of some type (unless you're an all-powerful dictator). Such is a fact of human nature. Why? It's not because we want other people to have power over us, but because there are those who have a insatiable need for power...and nature abhors a vacuum.
Unless you're a hermit unknown to any other people, you will always be subject to a government. That is an immutable fact. You have the option of trying to change the form or function of that government...but you will be subject a government nonetheless.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Alan #5 -
Humility is a concept to which Mr. Chandra has never been introduced, obviously.
8 - Cindy
Interesting intro, Roger. I await Part II.
9 - Ruvy
Roger, even a year of law school answers most of the problems you seem to raise. The state, as represented by the government, is the "sovereign". While "modern" countries usually do not have kings, the sovereign represented the authority of the state, usually a king, usually backed up by religion and priests, and the sovereign's most important function was to be commander of the army and navy in war.
You see this when, in the Bible, the Children of Israel demand a king, "like all other nations have". Samuel, after some heavy jawing with the Almighty, gets His sanction to find a king for Israel. The rest, as they say, is history.
Bloviating.... Nice term, seems to do the job.
I've seen such by Satish Chandra in the past elsewhere. If it indeed turns out that Indians nuke NYC, I'll tell my wife to wear a saree in his honor from then on.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy this Sufi tune by Kailash Kher.
10 - Alan Kurtz
Ruvy (#9), you seem to take Satish Chandra lightly. But I've been reading his web site, and his apocalyptic visions seem right up your alley. Except, of course, for this statement from June 2, 2010: "I have always held that India should use its nuclear weapons to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth."
Otherwise, though, I'd have thought you'd be in accord with his plan to run all of India's nuclear reactors in the military mode in order to produce ten thousand thermonuclear warheads, which would give India enough "to destroy the territory of the United States from coast to coast, from New York to Los Angeles and everything in between and from Chicago to Houston and everything in between."
While said arsenal is being assembled, he proposes that as a deterrent to U.S. preemptive attacks, India's special forces should preposition nuclear weapons in American cities. "This can be done in a matter of days and weeks," he advises, and "will serve beautifully."
Mr. Chandra seems to have thought this through pretty thoroughly, Ruvy. You know, we ought to give credit to somebody where it's due.
11 - Ruvy
The question, Alan, is not whether Satish has thought this through thoroughly. I'm sure he has. The question is, "can he pull it off?" The answer is, from the best that I can see, "no". Why? Because, to my knowledge, he has no position in the Indian government that will allow him to.
I take India and China very seriously. Together, they have over 2.7 billion people, or a over a third of the earth's population. And China ha s threatened the United States with nuclear attack, and those threats should be taken very seriously. They come from the People's Liberation Army. But while some Indians might have good reason to want to eliminate America from the world scene (but where would Sanjiv get his customer complaint calls if that happened?), it does not appear that Mr. Chandra has a popular base in India, either in the government or elsewhere. That he publishes his CV is proof of that.
12 - Alan Kurtz
Ruvy (#11), you're right. Satish Chandra has no position in the Indian government and no popular base in that country. Although born in India in 1944, he came to the U.S. at age 22 and is a legal permanent resident here, living in what he calls "enforced exile" in Buffalo, NY. (I've heard that most Buffalo residents think of it that way, especially during wintertime.)
But he openly scorns the Indian government and believes no popular base is necessary. "I have said what will be done to destroy the United States from coast to coast and exterminate its entire population. No one in India has the ability to think of this or bring it about. But this is what justice requires and this is what will be done. All the others have to do is obey India's legitimate ruler because they neither have the knowledge, nor intelligence nor courage nor character to do anything on their own. With nuclear weapons, a very few people can bring this about, that is, a very few people need to obey."
And to avoid any confusion as to whom they must obey, he adds: "They can only obey India's legitimate ruler, which is myself."
13 - Alan Kurtz
And did I mention that he's particularly interested in seeing people who have been in psychotherapy before but whose issues have remained unresolved?
Oh, yeah, I guess I did. Sorry to repeat.
14 - roger nowosielski
The article by Sekhar was hyperlinked; the editor must have missed it.
15 - roger nowosielski
I'm glad you're confirming my hunch, Doug Hunter, as to the origins of the concept of "the State," as a secular response to the reign of religion.
Ruvy, contrary to what they thought you in law school, and contrary to the infinite wisdom of Mr. Pedantic, Alan Kurtz himself, the concept of the state is an intricate concept which tends to be elusive.
A question for you: if it's such a common knowledge that the state is by its very nature tyrannical, how come the law students and eventual practicioners of law do the state's bidding rather than become the state's enemies (as they ought to have)? Why does the astute BC crowd, including our reknown Mr. Kurtz, keep on wasting their time discussing meaningless and partisan-ladden issues, issues full of distinctions without a difference, if, as you have rightly pointed out, we all living under tyranny? What good are Mr. Nalle's articles calling for liberty and smaller government, or articles by any of our liberal friends who oppose Mr. Nalle's viewpoint, if the state is the culprit and the main cause of our discontent? What good are Mr. Kurtz's serial "Military Watch" articles, occasionally invoking logic, occasionally his idiosyncratic verion of morality, at other times merely an appeal to our sense of patriotism, if the distinctions that are being made are spurious because they fail to question the very premises of the corrupt and closed system? What good are these things other than for their entertainment?
16 - Alan Kurtz
Roger Nowosielski, in trying to read your article, I was stymied by the impenetrable thicket of your prose. By contrast, your comment #15 is easy to understand. It's not simply that one is long and the other short. Rather, your comment is spontaneous, whereas your article is labored.
Be that as it may, you pose the rhetorical question, "Why does the astute BC crowd … keep on wasting their time discussing meaningless and partisan-laden issues, issues full of distinctions without a difference, if, as you [Ruvy] have rightly pointed out, we all living under tyranny?"
For my part, I do so because I categorically reject your absurd argument that we live under tyranny. From where I sit (California), democracy is flourishing.
You also ask, "What good are Mr. Kurtz's serial 'Military Watch' articles … if the distinctions that are being made are spurious because they fail to question the very premises of the corrupt and closed system?"
Again, I reject your premise. Distinctions need not be radical in order to be valid. When I exposed the fear-mongering liberal lie about 79,160 Military Rapes in our armed forces, you complained that I "missed the larger point, about acculturation. … Alan's article is moot, conveniently bypassing the larger issue." But I was not writing about acculturation, Roger. A 1,200-word blog cannot be all things to all people. It must have a focus. My focus was to expose the fear-mongering liberal lie. My article delivered exactly as intended.
As to "what good" are such articles, I submit that whenever someone Googles military rapes, they now have a slightly better chance of discovering an up-to-date, factually informed article that did not previously exist. This is good.
And I hasten to add, if they click on the link to my article, they will also find your pooh-poohing of it as moot. This too is good. For people looking to inform themselves, more sources are better than fewer. You, of course, haughtily dismiss this as a waste of time, involving issues full of distinctions without a difference.
Well, you're wrong. The difference between 79,160 purported military rapes and 575 actual military rapes is 78,575. That may be trivial to an amateur philosopher in his imaginary ivory tower, but it's significant to those of us down here in the real world.
Finally you ask, "What good are these things other than for their entertainment?" Roger, you sadly underestimate the value of entertainment. Humans, like many other species, are playful. It's one of our finest qualities. Yet you insist, "I've always made it a point to write only about things that matter rather than to expose BC readers to what I consider, relatively speaking, unimportant." Roger, you are one stuffy fella.
17 - Ruvy
I see, Roger, that you manage to miss simple and elemental concepts. How you got beyond high school is beginning to puzzle me.
The sovereign was the military commander who defended the country and the functions he gave his government were the state. When sub-commanders or tribal chiefs got dissatisfied with how the sovereign was running his roads show, civil wars or rebellions broke out. Sometimes, as in ancient Israel, the power of the king was limited; sometimes, as in ancient Sparta, the power of the king was limited by a council of elders - this was true also in Germany and later England. Sometimes the only limits on a king's power was his ability to physically kill off rivals.
But this is not all that complicated. The state was pretty much what the sovereign wanted it to be. All the philosophical bullshit that followed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were a result of dissatisfaction with the way sovereigns and their flunkies ran things. And as we have seen at Blogcritics, philosophers and lawyers can fuck things up royally.
18 - roger nowosielski
Alan, I have a variety of writing and talking styles, each suited to the audience at hand. And since you say this last piece of writing appears labored and contrived, I take it as a compliment: it was meant to come across in that way, and I worked very hard at it.
You see, most folks don't give a thought to words, terms and concepts they're quite facile with in terms of use. And why should they? It's the philosopher's job to make patently obvious what by all means should be patently obvious if we only gave it a thought. That's what grammatical remarks (as per Wittgenstein) are all about, to let the fly out of the bottle for all the fools to see. And once it's done, there is no longer a mystery, only a sigh of understanding: "How could I've been so stupid?"
Consequently, by virtue of your comments, I've succeeded.
19 - roger nowosielski
Ruvy,
It'a well known to all and sundry that you're the brightest light to have even graced the pages of Blogctics, so let's just take that as a starting point: you're brilliant.
I'll still say, however, that your truck-driver's education is showing. Keep on plugging though, buddy. "Welcome to my world" ought to be your motto.
At least you've got one thing going for you. Your world may be bat-crazy, but it's surely interesting.
20 - Ruvy
Roger, I'm not a truckdriver, never have been - and most likely, never will be. I did manage to get out of a university with a degree, and managed to live on the streets in the cold climate of MN for a year or so with minimal damage. And that was one hell of an education.
I'm not brilliant at all. But my one lousy year of law school taught me to think all around all those pages of bullshit you called an article. Keep on plugging, Roger. Maybe, one day before the messiah comes, you will manage to make the mud of philosophy as clear as clean glass. I figure it will happen as soon as pigs fly. I'll be keeping my eyes out for the wild boars of Samaria to come rocketing over a hedge any day now. I'm nothing if not an optimist.
Love and kisses...
21 - roger nowosielski
Let's get to the meat of your critique, Alan. My response is, "been there, done that." This isn't a private forum for relating our personal experiences and concerns but a public one. So of course I applaud your concern with rapes, military or otherwise, and any form of aberrant human behavior one can think of. Just like you, I abhor it. Only trying to put things in perspective.
You say you live in California and that tyranny is the furthest from your mind. Well, so have I for over thirty years and I can't wait to get back. But the thing is, you and I are out of the fray so to speak, because we're both our own persons. But make no mistake about it. Cindy speaks of acculturation as the main culprit and the chief cause of our discontent. I say it's the state.
So that's what it all amounts to. You speak of injustice within a closed and corrupt system. I choose to speak of the corrupt system itself. You tell me which is more relevant or meaningful.
And lastly, I don't hold any BC participant in contempt. Ignorant of the basic facts of life we all are, that's a given. And educating the lot of you I must, because ignorant you do appear or at least claim to be. We all, after all, have to make a difference. But it was a cheap shot on your part and you know it. In the future, don't let ego stand in the way of common sense.
22 - Mark
Rog: It's the philosopher's job to make patently obvious what by all means should be patently obvious if we only gave it a thought.
"Our only task is to be just."
That you are willing to play with Alan's game at all shows you for what you are.
Pity the philosophers.
23 - Christopher Rose
Philosophising is not a job, just an excuse for waffling at great length to no purpose. That is patently obvious...
24 - roger nowosielski
Only gave him the benefit of the doubt, Mark. Obviously, he's motivated by a sense of hostility for "past offenses." The game's over.
25 - Ruvy
Philosophising is not a job, just an excuse for waffling at great length to no purpose.
Quoted for truth.
Never thought I'd quote anything Chris Rose said for truth, but there it is - I can't believe it myself!