The percolator is, as we should all know by now, both the foundation and fountainhead of Anglo-American liberty:
As the number of public spaces proliferated during this period, so did opportunities for the exchange of information, ideas and criticism. An exemplar was the coffee-house. Within fifty years of the founding of the first in Europe--in Venice in 1645--it had spread across the continent, reaching London in the early 1650s. By 1659 Samuel Pepys could record that he had been to the Turk's Head coffee-house in New Palace Yard, close to Parliament, and had heard 'exceeding good argument against Mr Harrington's assertion that overbalance of propriety [property] was the foundation of government'. For the price of a cup of coffee (although many other beverages were on offer), anyone decently dressed could join in debating the issues of the day. The newly restored Charles II took a dim view of the freedom expression that prevailed there...
The notion of "public spaces" and the way they permit civil society to function may be the most important part here.
The recent controversy involving Starbucks and the open carry folks (crazies?) may be a good modern example of the ways in which public spaces (though privately owned) can promote political mobilization.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Blanning on the American Revolution
Another interesting quote from Tim Blanning's book The Pursuit of Glory:
On the American side, there was some confusion, or at least disagreement, as to whether they were conservatives fighting to defend old liberties in the plural or revolutionaries fighting for liberty in the abstract. Sensibly, the Continental Congress put the two together in their Declaration of Rights of 1774, appealing to 'the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters and compacts'.
So, the American revolution was both religious and secular, and both radical and conservative?
On the American side, there was some confusion, or at least disagreement, as to whether they were conservatives fighting to defend old liberties in the plural or revolutionaries fighting for liberty in the abstract. Sensibly, the Continental Congress put the two together in their Declaration of Rights of 1774, appealing to 'the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters and compacts'.
So, the American revolution was both religious and secular, and both radical and conservative?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Late 18th century elections in Britain
Haven't blogged in a long time; intended to start again over the summer, but just haven't had the energy for it. Have been wanting to start again for a couple of weeks or two. Maybe I'll start to get back into it again now. Although I've written that before and not followed through!
My research, this summer, has been about private and public goods provision in Peruvian municipalities, and the democratic dynamics that tend to drive greater or lesser public works spending around the Peruvian countryside.
One of my findings is an interesting interaction effect. What I've found is that greater electoral competition is associated with greater spending in public works, but only when there are substantial checks and balances present in municipal governments. These checks and balances, in Peru, consist of municipal council seats controlled by opposition parties.
My argument is, in effect, that all politicians would prefer to seek the support of voters by targeting reliable supporters with private goods than public goods, and only veto power by opposition groups will keep them from doing so. After all, private goods are easier to provide to supporters while excluding non-supporters. In the presence of a strong opposition, however, politicians will pursue the next best course; they will attempt to provide public goods to win support, even though non-supporters may experience some benefits of their policies.
In Peru, "private goods provision" comes at election time, and generally consists of political hopefuls using private or state funds to buy seed, fertilizer, durable goods, food, and (most often) alcohol for their supporters.
For obvious reasons, then, I was struck by the following quote, which describes British elections to Parliament abound the end of the 18th century in The Pursuit of Glory, a history text I'm working through on Europe before 1815:
When a contest did take place, no holds were barred and no stratagem thought too base in the quest for victory. Treating to food and drink, outright bribery and intimidation were all commonplace, greatly encouraged by the public ballot.
...and later...
Among the innumberable anomalies that could be found, the practice of bringing back registered "freemen" of a borough for the vote, even if they had moved to other parts of the kingdom, deserves a mention. When an officer of marines learnt that a number of sailors had been given special leave to return to their home town of Coventry to vote for the government candidate, he did his friend the Duke of Portland a good turn by having them hastily transferred to a ship outward bound to Guinea.
Indeed, it rather sounds as if modern Peruvian elections are substantially cleaner than their 18th century British counterparts.
My research, this summer, has been about private and public goods provision in Peruvian municipalities, and the democratic dynamics that tend to drive greater or lesser public works spending around the Peruvian countryside.
One of my findings is an interesting interaction effect. What I've found is that greater electoral competition is associated with greater spending in public works, but only when there are substantial checks and balances present in municipal governments. These checks and balances, in Peru, consist of municipal council seats controlled by opposition parties.
My argument is, in effect, that all politicians would prefer to seek the support of voters by targeting reliable supporters with private goods than public goods, and only veto power by opposition groups will keep them from doing so. After all, private goods are easier to provide to supporters while excluding non-supporters. In the presence of a strong opposition, however, politicians will pursue the next best course; they will attempt to provide public goods to win support, even though non-supporters may experience some benefits of their policies.
In Peru, "private goods provision" comes at election time, and generally consists of political hopefuls using private or state funds to buy seed, fertilizer, durable goods, food, and (most often) alcohol for their supporters.
For obvious reasons, then, I was struck by the following quote, which describes British elections to Parliament abound the end of the 18th century in The Pursuit of Glory, a history text I'm working through on Europe before 1815:
When a contest did take place, no holds were barred and no stratagem thought too base in the quest for victory. Treating to food and drink, outright bribery and intimidation were all commonplace, greatly encouraged by the public ballot.
...and later...
Among the innumberable anomalies that could be found, the practice of bringing back registered "freemen" of a borough for the vote, even if they had moved to other parts of the kingdom, deserves a mention. When an officer of marines learnt that a number of sailors had been given special leave to return to their home town of Coventry to vote for the government candidate, he did his friend the Duke of Portland a good turn by having them hastily transferred to a ship outward bound to Guinea.
Indeed, it rather sounds as if modern Peruvian elections are substantially cleaner than their 18th century British counterparts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)