“In light of the current political climate, do you feel that Plato is right that people who go into public office for motives of financial gain (or power gain) actually destroy the republic? Why or why not?
On January 30th of this year, the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, was impeached and removed from office after allegedly attempting to sell the Senate seat he was charged with appointing. According to transcripts from wiretapped phone conversations, the disgraced Governor said, “I’ve got this thing and its fu@#ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fu@#in’ nothing” (Salon.com). Blagojevich was seeking a sum of money in the form of campaign contributions, as well as an appointment to a well paying job with a 501(c)4 organization after the his term as governor. This example clearly demonstrates the danger that Plato cautions about when he writes, “But if beggars hungry for private goods go into public life, thinking that the good is there for the seizing, then the well-governed city is impossible” (Book VII, 521, p. 193).
In this instance, Blagojevich was not a “beggar” in the traditional sense, but displayed a profit motive in public office because he was lacking personal resources. Therefore, in order to cross apply Plato’s standards to the modern day, the term “beggar” cannot mean a homeless person from the street, since they would have no means with which to seize political power. Rather, the modern day “beggars” are those who would seek to translate political power into personal gain. In other words, anyone who is “hungry for private goods” would be covered under this definition a beggar.
According to Plato and many other political theorists, a republic should be constituted to promote the public good and not private interests. For example, in the preamble to the US Constitution, its authors inform us they endeavored to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.” The framers had in mind the preservation of the public good, and not the promotion of private interest.
Those who have in mind personal gain when they act are not acting in the interest of the republic by definition. However, some instances of personal gain are clearer than others. For example, Blagojevich attempting to sell a Senate seat is an example of using power for personal monetary gain; but what about a congressman who is influenced on a particular vote by someone who made a donation to his political campaign? In this instance, the motivation is to be reelected which enhances personal power. This scenario happens hundreds of times a daily, and is the way that many of this county’s policy provisions come into existence (Green 1). The notation that the motivation to maintain a position of power can be destructive was addressed by Plato: “But surely it is those who are not lovers of ruling who must rule, for if they don’t, the lovers of it, who are rivals, will fight over it” (Book VII, 521, p. 193).
However, does it logically follow that simply because individuals are pursuing their own interests that this makes it impossible for the eventual result to be in favor of the public? The congressman who takes money in the form of a campaign contribution probably is influenced by many different organizations, and still has to win the hearts of his constituents. The opposing side of an issue may very well be compelled to support his opponent, which may lead to him being voted out of office. In pursuing the perceived private good of being reelected, they more truly represent the views of their constituents in order to curry favor with them. On the macro-level, each branch of government in the United States is counterbalanced by the other two, making it more difficult for anyone to truly pursue their private interests at the expense of the public.
Most observers would agree that the pursuit of private interest can interfere with those of the public. Plato deals with this problem by supposedly granting power to the “philosopher king,” who would be able to make decision in an unbiased fashion. However, modern day republics (such as the United States) recognize that all men have self interest, so it is only by playing them opposed to each other that we can achieve a consensus public good. As James Madison put it in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Since art is fiction, it does not accurately explain truth (Socrates’ quest), and therefore is not only not helpful, but immoral. In our modern art forms, do think that TV, movies, music, etc. deceive people about reality or inform them? Think about how you view life, history, science, etc. How much of it is based on facts, or how much is based on images that you may have seen in a movie, read in a novel, or heard condensed into sound bites by a reporter with an agenda?
Aristotle writes in his Poetics that “imitation is an instinct of our nature” (6). History validates that assertion since every culture has at least some form of artistic expression. Plato’s point is that art and media can disguise the truth, which can make philosophic inquiry more difficult. There are instances in which art can be deceptive and skew the truth; however, Plato ignores the instances when art can elevate philosophic discussion and moral discovery.
Certain forms of art probably have a negative impact on society. For example, many modern day televisions viewers get their expectations for themselves and reality from their favorite television show. Viewers may judge personal standards of beauty from an unrealistically thin and tan character. A 2009 study of those who viewed television indicates that “content analysis of programming has generally revealed that television tends to portray higher incidences of violence than are actually present in the external world. This leads heavy television viewers to perceive higher levels of violence in society than light viewers.” Plato’s claim appears to be true for commercial, mass media made to appeal to the largest amount of people possible. A historical example to consider would be the way that media and rhetoric were used under the reign of the Nazis. Literature, film, art and even philosophy were co-opted to suit the purposes of the regime.
However, there are many forms of artistic, cinematic and theatrical forms of expression which illuminate philosophic inquiry and discussion instead of hindering it. An example is the plays of Vaclav Havel, the dissident, playwright and eventual political leader from the Czech Republic. His theatrical work serves as a complement to his political theory and as a biting critique on the totalitarian system under which he was living. His work was so powerful that he was catapulted to a position of political power, where he had a large part to play in Czechoslovakia becoming autonomous once again. Havel commented on International Theater Day in 1994, “Theater is a point at which the intellectual and spiritual life of the human community crystallizes. It is a space in which the community can exercise its freedom and come to an understanding” (Havel 163). If one considers the works of Shakespeare, the music of Beethoven, the art of Leonardo, the films of Orson Wells and then the argument that the world of art and has no place in the discussion of philosophy would be engaging in an activity where the best purveyor of your ultimate aim cannot be utilized.
Ironically, Plato himself uses a dramatic structure to convey his points. His supposed dialogues between Socrates and observes are generally considered to be merely a vehicle for getting his point across and not an accurate portrayal of real events. Furthermore, Plato himself employs the Allegory of the Cave, which has at its core a premise so fantastical that he would be hard pressed to not cross apply his own argument and label it as imitation removed from truth. Other philosophers have engaged in the same practice of creating a narrative in order to breathe life into their philosophical arguments: Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Sartre’s No Exit, and Camus’ The Stranger.
Art can be misleading and inspiring. In this instance, it is not the medium that ought to be critiqued, but rather the message. If a play, novel or television sitcom has at its foundation a premise that disguises the truth, then the result can be misleading; if, at its core the work has philosophical truth, then philosophic goals will be advanced. Perhaps Plato misses that fact that even though “The imitation is far removed from the truth” that distance may lead to better perspective and not an incorrect view of the world. Plato’s famous Allegory of the Cave demonstrates that we may not know where we stand with relation to the truth. However, works of art and theater (such as the Allegory itself) may be what eventually turns us around towards the light.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Poetics. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications Inc., 1997.
Green, Mark. Selling Out How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy. New York: Harper Paperbacks, 2004.
Havel, Václav. Art of the impossible politics as morality in practice : speeches and writings, 1990-1996. New York: Knopf, Distributed by Random House, 1997.
Madison, James. “The Federalist #51.” 2009. Web.
Osborn, Jeremy. “The Influence of Television Viewing on Expectations for and Assessments of Romantic Relationships” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 93rd Annual Convention, TBA, Chicago, IL, 2007. Web.
“I’ve got this thing and it’s f—ing golden” Web.
“LII: Constitution.” Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. 2009. Web.