In case the discourse turns out to be like everyone else’s next great American novel (viz., unfinished), I want to get out the gist of it on this weblog — or at least, the gist of my current thinking. It has to do with the habits of societies, and treating tradition as habit. Lloyd, directed me to this article, trashing Bush from a conservative position. He showed me this particularly intriguing paragraph:

Once, while I was a graduate student at Columbia, I took a seminar in important thinkers with Jacques Barzun and Lionel Trilling. Barzun, in particular, liked to start by identifying the core of a great thinker’s thought. When it came to Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution, I offered: “Burke knows that if you tried to tie your shoes in the morning by means of reason you would never get out of the house.” That is, you tie your shoes by habit. Barzun nodded approval but gave this a social dimension, saying, “Burke wanted his morning newspaper delivered on time.” That is, the writing, manufacture, and delivery of that newspaper require a great many actions that are accomplished by habit. Social institutions are the habits of society.

I want to add a moral dimension to this analysis: A good society has good habits. A democracy is not made smiply by the existence of certain laws. One will instantly think that laws must be enforced, but even the ability to enforce laws misses an element. When you have vast amounts of people breaking the law, it is very hard to enforce the law without overwhelming force, and the use of force to impose your will isn’t exactly democracy at work. The moment when a government is established cannot create a democracy. It’s something entirely less clear-cut. A democratic society has the habits of democracy.

If you want a good reason why democracy is so hard to establish, I can simplify part of the answer with an old maxim: Old habits die hard. Case in point, the “habit” of assassination. Here we have a case of assassination in Russia. Note the title of the weblog entry: “Assassination is ‘in’ again.” I would argue that it never was “out.” My emphasis on societal habits might indeed lead to a different paradigm of thinking. (The idea isn’t new, of course, but tradition seems to be generally equated with good things and here I am talking about bad habits.) It would be impossible to declare by fiat that assassination shall not occur. (After all, find me a place where assassination is actually legalized.) It’s much like declaring on New Year’s that I will go to the gym everyday. The declaration doesn’t mean a damn thing. Going to the gym once doesn’t mean a damn thing. Going to the gym off and on for a month, might be slightly more admirable, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it doesn’t mean a damn thing either. Writing a constitution, establishing a new government… it doesn’t mean a damn thing if your society simply reverts to its old ways. Why should we be surprised at all when Russia is becoming as closed a society as it once was?

Don’t buy into my theory of habit? Don’t think a society can have habits? Well, imagine a different America. Imagine if instead of retiring at the end of two terms, George Washington stayed until he died. We would be a much different place. Perhaps we would see each president stay in office until he died. If that were the case, the presidency would’ve had a much bigger role throughout history and been much like a cult of personality. We would reelect presidents that way because it was simply the way it has always been done. Besides, if you were to tell me that society doesn’t have habits, you would say that the entire field of sociology is bunkum because it studies the reproduction of social structures. In my mind, it’s easy to equate reproduction of social structures with habit, especially since it’s easier for the common man to grasp.

Keep in mind, though, that I don’t believe social structures are impossible to change. This idea of old habits being difficult to kill mainly destroys the idea of historical inevitability — that democracy is on the march, or even can march at all. Habits may evolve in certain ways, but rarely do you see bad habits evolve into good ones. Often, there needs to be an agent, or agents, pushing for such change. Hence, the title of the discourse is Principles of Agitation, which can try to say how one might go about making such change (or how one should not go about making such change).

Now, read this column, The Politics of Murder, from David Ignatius. He compares the politics of murder to a disease. It’s the wrong view. It implies that the sickness can be purged. Simply bringing the killers to justice will not do anything. He’s on the right track when he says, “[The UN] must make this rule of law stick.” However, one example of punishment doesn’t make anything stick. The ones who participate in assassination must be repeatedly brought to justice, otherwise, you’ll just get more of the same. It’s not a disease. It’s a habit. And old habits die hard.

Important note: Habits don’t explain everything about government or society. It may be easy to carry the analogy too far, and I wonder if I’ve done so myself, but I do find it a useful way to frame the issue.