Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 08:12PM Join us in the Pierson Seminar Room this Friday at 8 pm as we celebrate our friendship and our forthcoming trip to Congress Hall with drink and song! We welcome you to join the company of Federalist kin as we take part in one of our favorite traditions. (Singing ability is not required to participate.)
Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 08:07PM With a vote on Syria looming, many Congressmen and Senators are likely scrambling to tally the opinions of their irate and (mostly) uninformed constituents. This may seem like a questionable way for enlightened leaders to decide how to vote, but it is part of a process that has reverberated through the annals of American political culture ever since the Patriots used “No taxation without representation” as their battle cry: constituents elect their representatives, the representatives legislate according to the interests of their constituents, and constituents vote errant representatives out of office. It’s a simple dynamic, one that ensures accountability and speaks to essence of democracy.
But it is a dynamic that is arguably stifling the creativity, innovation and bipartisanship of our elected leaders. And paradoxically, WE THE PEOPLE perpetuate this process, even though we detest its results: we all like that our representative votes for this tax cut we needed, or that environmental regulation we wanted, but both sides of the political aisle also agree that our legislatures on the whole are not actually doing anything productive—Congress’s approval rating is at a laughable 10%, an all-time low. So what will it be—should we leave our representatives free to be leaders/trustees, or should we continue to chain them to our whims and demand that they be our loyal delegates? Is the leadership/trustee model just the first step to oligarchy? Is the delegate model necessarily even more democratic?
In more general terms, what is the proper relationship between constituents and their elected representatives and how can we apply this relationship to the unique constraints of American society and culture? Does the answer to this question depend on whether we are talking about the federal government, versus state or local government? Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed? How would the leadership/trustee model even work, and would it necessarily solve our problems of gridlock and polarization? Ahh, so many questions and so much relevance to current events!
So come join us this WEDNESDAY at 7:30 p.m. in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room as we put our political theory thinking caps on and orient our attention to the peculiarities of the American political system. All are most welcome.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 11:09AM Berkeley Mendenhall Room
In the current epoch, where civil liberties are at the forefront of our consciousness (see: NSA surveillance controversy), it is becoming increasingly clear that Americans value their privacy vis-à-vis the government. Do we place value on privacy merely because it makes for a good libertarian answer to the question of the proper relationship between the state and the citizen, or is there inherent moral and philosophical merit to the hiddenness of certain thoughts, words and actions? We often talk about the rights of citizens, but does the government perhaps have a “right,” as preserver of order and peace, to have the unfettered ability to acquire knowledge of any and all illegal (or immoral) acts within its jurisdiction? As much as we balk at an untrustworthy government, trust is a two-way street in most relationships. Why should the state-citizen relationship be the exception to the rule?
Speaking of these other types of relationships, are we bound, whether morally or philosophically, to reveal our true character when we interact with others? What if hiding our imperfections is the same as hiding impulses that may cause harm to others? And yet, perhaps we should have nothing to hide because we have a duty to develop continuously a more perfect character, or at least be comfortable with the progress we are making. To what extent, though, do we have to be “good” people in private? Is this even possible? If not, then does some sort of society or polity necessarily have to exist prior to any notions of what is true and good?
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 06:28PM To those in the Class of 2017, welcome to Yale, and to old friends, welcome back!
From a young age, our teachers and mentors have often encouraged us to test the limits of our imagination and creativity. They push us to expand our intellectual and social boundaries until they are boundless. Not to do so, it seems, can only lead to a mundane, unsuccessful and unfulfilled life. But is this necessarily the case? Perhaps thinking outside the box leads one to discard tried-and-true practices. Did history’s great visionaries—Pericles, Newton, Washington, Einstein—actually experience genuine bursts of inspiration, or did they instead corral the rich traditions of their respective disciplines to move humanity forward? Einstein himself said that imagination is more important than knowledge.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 09:18PM Join us at Mory's this Thursday at 9pm as we celebrate another semester with drink and song! Reflect on another semester in the company of Federalist kin as we take part in one of our favorite traditions. A small pre-toasting session will be held at 8pm before we depart to Mory's. (Singing ability is not required to participate.)