February 21, 2004

Prophecy

Posted by Chris

Yesterday, a colleague pointed out to me the following passage in the late Jean Hampton’s Political Philosophy . Professor Hampton, who died in 1996, must have thought it inconceivable that a certain person would achieve high political office:

Now while it is undeniable that some people are smarter or more virtuous or stronger than other people, these differences by themselves do not seem relevant to establishing political domination. Think, for example, of all the ways in which people are different from one another, physically, mentally and temperamentally. If someone has greater muscle strength than another, does that mean that he gets to rule the other? No: Arnold Schwarzenegger is not considered, by virtue of his physical prowess, a political authority. (p. 19)

Posted on February 21, 2004 09:09 AM UTC
Comments

And yet, it was foretold in ‘Demolition Man’, when Sandra Bullock’s character refers to the ‘Schwarznagger Presidential Library’…

Posted by LTH · February 21, 2004 01:28 PM

Hampton was obviously one of those elitist left-wing academics we hear so much about. The voters, because of their natural understanding of the foundations of western culture, and despite the best intentions of university professors to change their better nature, new better.

Posted by mondo dentro · February 21, 2004 02:59 PM

Dont know if any of you are old Shadowrun junkies (a pen & paper role playing game) but according to the background literature Ahhnold becomes the govenator of california, then becomes one of the most successful & loved presidents of the united states..

This was written.. oh I dunno, in 86-88?

Gee, I just hope people dont start turning into Orks anytime soon..

Posted by sUbversive · February 21, 2004 03:06 PM

“Hampton was obviously one of those elitist left-wing academics we hear so much about.”

Well, what else is this but elitism? Is the implication that anyone with muscles as big as Schwarzenegger’s is necessarily an idiot, incapable of governing? This looks more like an endorsement of the “athletic types are dumb” stereotype than insightful thinking to me.

In point of fact, Jean Hampton’s actual statement is more subtle than the interpretation some would like to place on it. It is true enough that Schwarzenegger ought not to considered “by virtue of his physical prowess, a political authority”, but then the same goes for lots of other characteristics people on here would presumably find unproblematic. What gives the likes of Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand the right to pass judgement on office-holders and be taken seriously by the media? Why should anyone give a damn what the likes of Janis Joplin and Martin Sheen think about the issues of the day?

All that aside, I see no evidence that anyone voted for Schwarzenegger simply because of his muscles; after all, the guy did have a well-articulated political position long before he ran for office, even if the libertarianism he avows isn’t everyone here’s cup of tea.

Posted by Abiola Lapite · February 21, 2004 03:51 PM

abiola lapite, are you really this humor deficient? And this dense? I mean, there’s lots of good stuff out there, just waiting to be taken seriously, and you hone in on this?

For the record, it seems quite clear that Hampton is making the shocking argument that A.S. (or anyone else) oughtn’t be considered for public office by virtue of their muscle mass, not that he’s otherwise incapable of governing. In fact, her point is profoundly unelitist, in fact, controversially so. She’s suggesting that intelligence, or any other singe skill set/factor, is sufficient to justify political domination. In other words, we ought to reject both philosopher kings and bench-press kings, for similar reasons.

Posted by DJW · February 21, 2004 04:05 PM

Half-seriously: obviously, Arnold’s physique wasn’t his sole qualification; otherwise, Lou Ferrigno and Lee Haney (American bodybuilding champs for the ESPN-challenged) would also be potential officeholders.

But winning the 1975 Mr. Olympia contest (or whichever one was chronicled in Pumping Iron) certainly, in hindsight, was, though not sufficient, certainly a necessary condition to Schwarzenegger’s political rise, as that documentary started it all.

Of course winning a bodybuilding tournament then (as probably now) was unthinkable without the copious consumption of steroids. Kinda makes Bush’s SOTU remarks about ‘roids seem a tad ironic, indeed ungrateful, given that the GOP owes the California governorship to steroid abuse.

Posted by son volt · February 21, 2004 04:29 PM

I posted on this just because I thought it funny that Hampton used AS as an example given subsequent history. But, yes, obviously , her point here is an anti-elitist one: she’s arguing against a natural aristocracy based on physical or intellectual or temperamental prowess.

Posted by Chris Bertram · February 21, 2004 08:09 PM

Well, what else is this but elitism? Is the implication that anyone with muscles as big as Schwarzenegger’s is necessarily an idiot, incapable of governing?

Gosh. You sound like a cultural relativist! Silly me, I actually believe in absolute standards of achievement and qualifications for leadership. Movie stars picked by some power elite for their ability to fake out the voters don’t cut it.

Furthermore, I believe in absolute notions of logic, whereas you seem to think it is culturally determined based on politics. Explain to me how you can take this:

If someone has greater muscle strength than another, does that mean that he gets to rule the other? No: Arnold Schwarzenegger is not considered, by virtue of his physical prowess, a political authority.

to be an “…implication that anyone with muscles as big as Schwarzenegger’s is necessarily an idiot, incapable of governing?” I think your parsing software is busted.

See? Everyone can play “absolute values” game. It’s easy! It’s fun!

Posted by mondo dentro · February 21, 2004 08:49 PM

“are you really this humor deficient? And this dense?”

As dense as what, exactly? You seem to be denser than a lead brick, that much is for certain. Didn’t your eyes alight on the following before you hit the post button?
“In point of fact, Jean Hampton’s actual statement is more subtle than the interpretation some would like to place on it. It is true enough that Schwarzenegger ought not to considered “by virtue of his physical prowess, a political authority”, but then the same goes for lots of other characteristics people on here would presumably find unproblematic.”

“Gosh. You sound like a cultural relativist! Silly me, I actually believe in absolute standards of achievement and qualifications for leadership. Movie stars picked by some power elite for their ability to fake out the voters don’t cut it.”

And you sound like a halfwit attempting to look clever. What does anything I said have to do with “cultural relativism” and “absolute values?” And what exactly do you mean by those two stale phrases anyway? You sound like someone trying to catch up with 1990.

Posted by Abiola Lapite · February 21, 2004 09:51 PM

[I]”… and despite the best intentions of university professors to change their better nature, new better”[/I]

Yes, new better indeed.

Posted by dw · February 21, 2004 10:12 PM

What does anything I said have to do with “cultural relativism” and “absolute values?”

Criticisms of cultural elites by the left have often been deflected by counter-charges of “cultural relativism” and admonishments that one needs to recognize that certain belief systems are simply superior. If one believes in “absolute values”, one is not a “relativist”. They’re bullshit categories, obviously—but part and parcel of typical attacks on “left wing intellectuals”.

But surely you knew all this, right?

Posted by mondo dentro · February 21, 2004 10:20 PM

I’ve been reading CT for a while now, yet I’ve somehow missed the posts and discussions in which Martin Sheen and Barbara Streisand are cited as authorities on all matters political, and entreated to run for public office. Perhaps I’m not paying close enough attention.

Or perhaps, some posters have a stock image of the left, which they throw around with reckless abandon and without reference to any actual facts or arguments.

Posted by djw · February 21, 2004 10:29 PM

I, for one, would love to know what Janis Joplin thinks about the issues of the day.

Posted by cdm · February 21, 2004 11:24 PM

cdm- you grabbed it right out of my hands.
-
Lou Ferrigno would make a fine senator, as long as Bill Frist and his ilk are in there.
-
There’s a strong urge to denial everywhere now - that Arnold S. was placed before the public as a token for other less visible powers is not a comfortable idea for anyone.
But how can anyone deny that?
All this fixation on Bush as cause, when he’s obviously what Reagan was, a relatively predictable marker, in place and solidly backed by the real powers that be.
Who now seem to be ready to slide their saddlebags over onto Kerry’s willing back, in this mid-stream election year.

Posted by msg · February 22, 2004 12:40 AM

Of course Arnold isn’t considered a political authority because of his physical prowess. He’s considered a political authority because of his party affiliation.

Posted by Charles V · February 23, 2004 01:28 AM

Chris, can you elaborate on “temperamental prowess”? Temperament, sure—but “prowess”? The ability to display one’s temperament in a manner that effectively manipulates others? Or do you just mean self-control or ability to roll with the punches?

Posted by Joel · February 23, 2004 06:46 AM

How true, and of course no one would surely say that by virtue of his political authority, Tony Blair would be considered a street-fighting man. But they would be wrong … The two things go together like, well … musclepower and the governorship: don’t forget wrestler Jesse Ventura got there first.

Posted by Dave F · February 23, 2004 11:52 AM

“Physically, mentally, and temperamentally” harks back to “smarter or more virtuous or stronger.” So the temperamental counterpart of “physical prowess” would have to be virtue. We don’t usually call that “temperamental prowess,” but I guess we can. Anyway, this makes Hampton’s point extremely startling (though I’m not familiar with her larger argument).

Posted by Matt Weiner · February 23, 2004 04:12 PM

Who now seem to be ready to slide their saddlebags over onto Kerry’s willing back, in this mid-stream election year.

Oh, lord god. Fucking Naderites.

Posted by goethean · February 23, 2004 09:21 PM

Goethean-
Working with the more obvious meaning of “Naderite”, as someone who voted for Nader or would, and who espouses his principles and ideas as dogma, I’ve got to say you’re wrong. It’s unlikely I’d vote for him, and I didn’t last time.
The United States began when people were no longer able to select a compromise from the lesser of two or three or four evils. When the only viable solution was itself another type of evil, war. This country began in a war of revolution. An option that’s probably not going to be on the ballot.
Anybody Fox News and Time and Newsweek all put forth as a viable and acceptable candidate is not the lesser of two evils.
Howard Dean was assassinated in full public view, they just let him live.
Bush at this political moment is no longer the Chosen One, is in fact unelectable.
Whatever chose him in 2000 seems to have laid its blessing on John Kerry now.
The easy gloss is this thing is some kind of sports contest. It may be, but it would help to remember that there’s always a third club represented on the field. The owners.
That would have been the, essentially minor and tangential, point.

Posted by msg · February 24, 2004 03:39 AM
Followups

→ Blog Explorer.
Excerpt: Insults Unpunished; Bush To Sign CAFTA Command Post; Jihad accuses U.S., Israeli groups of wrecking its Web site Outside The Beltway; Kerry and Edwards: Oxymorons Judicious Asininity; The Multilateral Mirage Samizdata; The Squeaking Pips ...Read more at The Temporal Globe

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.