There’s a lot to say in response to this, but what’s most striking to me is the gap between your interpretation of the history and mine. Your interpretation seems to be something about moral or intellectual corruption. My is a simple practical diagnosis and prescription: the Athenians should have abandoned their own empire, because it corrupted their public thinking—and did so with extreme rapidity, in the course of a few generations. I of course feel the same way about the US.
I don’t disagree with the practical recommendation, but without the collective capacity to deliberate rationally, arguments that the collective would benefit from doing one thing or another don’t generally have the desired effect. For instance, “The Sicilian Expedition would be ruinously expensive even if successful” was available obviously good advice in their recent memory, and the Athenians had responded by authorizing the ruinous expenses.
(repost from FB comment):
There’s a lot to say in response to this, but what’s most striking to me is the gap between your interpretation of the history and mine. Your interpretation seems to be something about moral or intellectual corruption. My is a simple practical diagnosis and prescription: the Athenians should have abandoned their own empire, because it corrupted their public thinking—and did so with extreme rapidity, in the course of a few generations. I of course feel the same way about the US.
I don’t disagree with the practical recommendation, but without the collective capacity to deliberate rationally, arguments that the collective would benefit from doing one thing or another don’t generally have the desired effect. For instance, “The Sicilian Expedition would be ruinously expensive even if successful” was available obviously good advice in their recent memory, and the Athenians had responded by authorizing the ruinous expenses.
In another recent piece I discussed the moral risks of empire, i.e. ways in which it can compromise central decisionmaking.