Bad Philosophy

Gleaning from his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, it seems that Preisdent Obama is not much of a theologian.  Well, what about Obama as philosopher?  Here is his mediation on Plato and the golden rule:

...and I believe in God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”  I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -– from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato. 

Scott Johnson from Powerline has some thoughts on Plato, classical political philosophy, and James Madison:

Obama also cited Plato as stating a version of the Golden Rule supporting his policies. Where’d he get that Idea? Apparently from a statement made by Socrates in The Republic, but no version of the Golden Rule lends support to the vast expansion of government powers that Obama claims are derived from it.

Except in letters of questionable authenticity, Plato’s writings never speak in Plato’s own voice. His writings are dialogic plays that require close analysis and interpretation. Citing a statement from Plato’s writings for a particular proposition is like citing Shakespeare’s writings for the proposition that life is meaningless. Watching the fate of Socrates in the Athenian democracy, however, Plato was witness to the injustice to which democracy is prone. See Plato’s Apology of Socrates.

Classical political philosophy has guidance to offer even if it doesn’t have the bearing Obama imputes to it. The classic political philosophers were of course aware of Obama’s type; one variation of his type appears in Plato’s dialogues in the personage of Alicibiades. His is a type that thrives in a democracy, but the classic political philosophers thought that the type made democracy unworkable.

The classic political philosophers found democracy to be a threat to property as well as to life. Given that citizens of lesser means always outnumber the rich, they held that government based on majority rule was untenable if not absurd. They were of the view that it would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Aristotle observed in The Politics, for example: “If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.”

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle’s concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” James Madison and his colleagues held that the “first object of government” was to protect the rights of property.

The Founders were well aware that political minorities as well as majorities could be dangerous, even fatal, to the operation of government (See Federalist 10).  And this is why they did not establish a pure democracy where the majority gets to do whatever it wants: they established a republic where representatives would represent the people.  This would free debate from passion and focus it on reason and prudence (this is why before the 17th Amendment the U.S. Senate was elected by the state legislatures).  In order to believe this though, one must continuously grapple with these timeless problems and not believe that simply because it's the year 2012 that we have figured this all out and moved on.