Author: E. O. Scott

The midterm elections here in the United States are happening tomorrow, and passions are running incredibly high.  After a solid decade and more of rapidly growing mistrust and distaste on both sides of our two-party system (as documented by Pew Research Center polls, among myriad other metrics), we’re looking down the barrel at “the most sweeping and divisive national referendum on any administration at least since the Great Depression,” as one political scientist told the Washington Post.

Normally I would dismiss such talk as dramatic hyperbole, but for many of us, “polarization” has become the watchword of the day. The very intensity and intractability of America’s partisan brawling is starting to become as concerning as the issues that we were brawling about in the first place!  The fact of polarization seems to be just about the only thing that the country can agree on these days: according to a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, a record-setting 9 out of 10 Americans believe that partisan divisions are a “serious problem” for the U.S. today.  But true to form, the same survey naturally shows that each side points fingers at the other party as by far the primary cause of the divide.

If Stoicism is ever called for in our political lives, surely the intensely adversarial atmosphere that attends a divided country is one of those times.  How might a rational, affectionate, and morally driven προκόπτον (prokopton) navigate the sensational morass of adversarial politics in an unusually polarized time?

This is a harder question than it might at first appear.  I’ll approach the issue here in a few different ways, but overall I want to suggest that the Stoic concepts of ignorance, Temperance, Courage, and (especially) Socratic dialogue have a great deal to teach us about how to engage ethically and effectively in polarized conversations.  And to close, I’ll share a bit about my recent experience in an inter-partisan dialogue workshop that brought a group of self-identified “reds” and “blues” together for structured exercises in building mutual understanding.  Dialogue movements of this kind strike me as something that Stoics of all political persuasions ought to be able to support, despite the legitimate misgivings some people have about such methods on their surface.

Continue reading “Stoicism for Polarized Politics”

Becoming something of a majority leader, Cato pressed his conservative optimates to pass a resolution condemning Pompey’s attempt to change election law for his own interest…

The Stoic leading the statehouse thwarted the conqueror at every turn, using his now-perfected filibuster to kill the populist legislation. With little room to maneuver, Pompey would try a new approach.

—Pat McGeehan, Stoicism and the Statehouse (2017), p. 56–7.

This passage from West Virginia state delegate Pat McGeehan’s recent book illustrates one of many ways that today’s students of Stoic tradition have found it to be a rich resource for ongoing political inspiration.

Connecting the framework of Stoic virtue ethics to something as detailed and multi-faceted as politics is no simple task.  In this post, I want to propose that while Stoic political engagement is varied (and can be found on both the left and the right), overall it is unified by three broad principles: cosmopolitanism, non-retribution, and an ethic of service.

Continue reading “What Political Ideas are Supported by Stoic Philosophy?”