Plato was the first major thinker to develop a human typology.  Before Friedrich Schiller or Carl Jung, he divided humanity into types.  In his Republic, the great Greek philosopher analyzed the relative suitability of different types for political leadership.

These divisions were set by the passions or qualities that dominated each individual.  Some people were ruled by greed, others by combativeness and still others by philosophical contemplation.  Plato did not consider those ruled by greed, the businessmen, to be suitable leaders.

We have suffered much recently from the business interest of politicians.  The Bush family, from the oil industry, waged needless wars in oil-rich Iraq.  In a move resembling Aeschylus’ tragedy The Persians, Vice President Dick Cheney reaped financial rewards through Halliburton after pushing the younger Bush into the second Iraq invasion.

All of this should cause us to cast a jaundiced eye on one of the current candidates: the real estate developer Trump.

But we should also remember that George Washington, one of our greatest presidents, was the wealthiest American in time.  Washington was not merely a successful farmer, but an entrepreneur in a number of business projects.

Yet the case of George Washington is complicated.

Plato also opposed the ruling of the state by military people: the people ruled by combative passions.  World history seems to bear this out.  We only need to look decades.  Nevertheless, the U.S. has had considerable success with its general-presidents, including Eisenhower and Washington.

Plato said that the state should be ruled by philosophers: those devoted to the pursuit of right reason.  He said that his ideal republic would not be realized until either philosophers became kings or kings philosophize.

Perhaps, in the 21st century, such a view seems patently unrealistic.  Excepting Jan Smuts of South Africa, philosophers have long kept away from the practical world of business and politics.  In the confines of academia, they have, over the past century, become narrow specialists.

But the great thinkers of the ancient Greek world, running from Greece across the Mediterranean to Magna Graecia in southern Italy, were not narrow specialists.  Most of them worked in science, or at least in the natural philosophy that led to science.  We need only think of mathematical discoveries of Pythagoras and his disciples.

The great teacher Socrates turned from scientific investigation to dialectical analysis.  Yet his followers immersed themselves his science.  Plato, following the Pythagoreans, did considerable work in geometry.  Plato’s student Aristotle, hailing from a family of physicians, became the most accomplished scientist of the ancient world.

The question of scientists, of course, brings up other questions.  In his novel The Shape of Things to Come, H.G. Wells envisioned a future war-torn world saved by scientists.  But would we want Sheldon Cooper, the physicist on Big Bang Theory leading us?  Brilliant scientists often miss many practicalities, and fail to read the subtleties of human behavior.

In ancient world known to Plato, philosophers often not merely scientists but also statesmen.  Pythagoras and Empedocles were political leaders.  Parmenides created a constitution for the city of Elea.  Even Plato involved himself in politics, until he was jailed by the king of Sicily for a short time.  In this context, the concept of a philosopher-king was not so farfetched.

Plato, who came from an aristocratic family, had a strong distrust of democracy.  His Republic cannot, in every aspect, be a guide to us in continuing to shape our own democracy.  Yet it can be helpful in making us look at human types and passions.

We can infer that the best leaders are well-rounded persons with complex compositions and wide-ranging backgrounds and interests.  It would also be best if philosophy, as the pursuit of wisdom, remained a part of a leader’s personality.

When selecting a president we should look for a candidate with executive experience.   It would also be helpful for the candidate to possess legislative experience, as that infers the ability and willingness with others.

Hillary Clinton, as both former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, has both legislative and executive experience.  Barack Obama, a former Illinois state legislator and U.S. Senator, had legislative experience, but was hampered by his lack of executive experience.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, a quite successful president, had executive experience as leader of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.  While he did not serve on a legislature, Eisenhower had something close to legislative experience in his Allied command.  For the Allied forces combating Germany and Italy were loosely-contacted nations, often with opposing interests.  General Eisenhower showed considerable political skill in keeping these nations aligned.

Today Donald Trump is one of the two major presidential candidates.  As head of several corporations, Trump has abundant executive experience.  But the corporate has far different rules than the political.  The behavior we tolerate in business magnates is far removed from what we expect of political leaders.

It doesn’t help that Trump has only worked in business.  Plato would not have recommended him for leadership of the state.  Trump would probably admit that in his work he has been motivated by greed.  But what other qualities has he shown himself to possess?

As I’ve pointed out, George Washington was an enterprising capitalist.  But Washington had abundant executive experience in the service of the state as commander of the successful effort to free the colonies from English rule.  He also possessed considerable legislative experience as a long-time member of the Virginia House of Burgesses.  Interestingly enough, Washington also had judicial experience as a judge in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Trump has nothing comparable.

I do not write these words to tell others how to vote but rather to encourage analysis.  Our system of selecting presidents seems have hit a dead end.  The people who win nominations are most often a far cry from the people most needed to run the country.

George Bernard Shaw said that the challenge of question of how to best pick leaders is the great mystery of civilization.  Now, in the early 21st century, it’s apparent that both parties have recently failed to provide satisfactory leaders.

We need more open elections.  Voters need more options.

I conclude with the now-remote question of how to find the greatest leaders.

Our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, were far different people than the people they started out being.

Washington, as a frontier surveyor and commander in the French and Indian war, was a major opportunist.  He did whatever he needed to help his ambitions.  Abraham Lincoln, early in his career, was little more than an ambitious and crafty frontier lawyer.

These two men eventually showed great nobility of character.  Lincoln ended up with a truly altruistic vision, and Washington was selfless and even humble in the service of his country. In essence, both men had the ability to evolve.

Franklin D. Roosevelt perhaps lacked the stature of Washington or Lincoln.  But his scale of achievement far exceeded the presidents of recent decades.  He started out as a somewhat superficial person.  It was the onset of polio that changed him, and gave him considerable compassion for the sufferings other people.

Franklin Roosevelt, too, had evolved.  It was this compassion and strength that helped him lead the nation through both the Great Depression and the Second World War.

How can we find such an ability?  To do so we would have to look closely, beyond all the hype and hysteria that confronts us today.


Posted in law and politics, News and politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment


As we obsess on the trainwreck that is the current presidential election, I have tried ways to become at peace.  Rhetorically, I ask myself questions: Will the whole ship of state sink with one disastrous personality of a president?  Isn’t the president merely one person in a large system?  Why don’t we pay attention to the other persons manning the government?

Recently I read Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton.  I read it mainly because of the musical, but the book gave me some insights.  As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, a page of history is worth a pound of logic.

Since attending law school, I have struggled with the meaning and shape of the federal constitution.  Yet seems to me, from reading Chernow’s book and other historical texts, that our nation’s founders planned the federal government as a pyramid of power.

These founders, including Hamilton and James Madison, were well informed.  They drafted the constitution with their eyes on history.

It has been said that they took our system of checks and balances from the French jurist Montesquieu.  Montesquieu, in turn, saw this system as already working in the English government.

But Montesquieu’s observations were not quite accurate.  It was true that a century earlier, following the Restoration, Charles II and Parliament had shared power equally.  They were compelled by circumstance to cooperate with each other.

But after the accession of the Hanovers in the early 1700’s, the British Parliament became the sole shaper of public policy.  The monarchs became figureheads.

It was Parliament that imposed the taxes exploiting the American colonies.  For a considerable time, colonists, including young Hamilton, retained a loyalty to the King even while venting their anger against Parliament.  It was only after George III called for the hanging of all rebels that angry colonists turned away from him.

As Parliament had been the most active part of the British government, our nation’s founders established the Congress as the primary branch of the new government.  It would be Congress that would enact laws and levy taxes.

The founders agreed that the nation would have a chief executive.  But the executive branch was viewed with suspicion.  The chief executive, or president, could potentially assume power as a monarch or despot.

It would be best that the president be subordinate to the Congress.  The president had to run the nation in such matters as commanding the military and collecting taxes, but laws would be passed only by the Congress.  If the president hoped to influence public policy, he or should would have to do so through the Congress.

Finally, the judicial branch was to be the most the most limited.  It would make decisions only on the specific cases that were presented to it.  It could interpret existing laws in the cases presented.  But those decisions were limited to evidentiary facts presented by counsel.

We would do well to again look at this pyramid.  Admittedly, all of these branches have evolved.  The presidency, through such strong personalities as Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, has assumed more power.  The nation has largely looked to presidents for leadership.

The Supreme Court has also significantly developed.  With the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison,  the Court, led by John Marshall, established the principle of judicial review.  The judiciary has the power to review legislative or executive acts in the light of the federal constitution.  It can accordingly strike down laws that do not comply with the constitution.

But a misperception exists to the effect that the judiciary has broad powers.  Much has been made of the far-reaching decisions of the Warren Court.

Yet these decisions are limited to constitutional considerations.  The Civil War fundamentally changed the nature of the federal government.  With the south defeated, the federal government changed from a federation of states to a united government.  The constitution was amended not merely to acknowledge the rights of all persons, but to provide some federal oversight on the potential denial of those rights by state or local governments.

Further political changes occurred in the two decades following the end of the Civil War.  Reconstruction ended.  The federal government backed away from enforcing the constitutional amendments enacted in the late 1860’s.  The Supreme Court refused to oversee the acts of state governments, even allowing segregation to stand in the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson.

The Court was thus reneging on the judicial review policies established by the Marshall Court.  It was allowing unconstitutional acts to stand.

In reaction to 80-plus years of judicial backsliding, the decisions of the Warren Court were far-reaching.  Through Brown v. Board of Topeka, Kansas, the Court held school segregation to be unconstitutional.  Miranda v. Arizona  ruled that police must give warnings before they may extract confessions from incarcerated suspects.  Gideon v. Wainwright established the right of the indigent to free counsel.

Yet these decisions were not broad exercises of judicial power.  They were rather corrections of the prior abdication by the judiciary of its responsibilities.  The courts  again to stuck down government acts that violated the constitution.

Contrary to their detractors, the justices on the Warren Court understand their limitations.  They were not authorized to create new laws.  They were not to question the soundness or wisdom of statutes or executive policies.  Often they were compelled to uphold foolish laws.

We would do well to also understand the limitations of the executive branch.  This branch must carry out the day-to-day work of the federal government.  It must collect taxes, protect the nation and investigate and prosecute federal crimes.

But its powers are nevertheless limited. President Obama’s attempts to circumvent Congress through the issuance of executive orders have been of minor effect.

To understand the relationship between Congress and the president, we must go again to history.  In medieval England, the barons grew tired of the unilateral levying of taxes by the tyrannical King John.  Through a combined effort, they forced John to sign the Magna Charta.  The monarch could thereafter levy taxes only with approval of the nobles.

In the succeeding decades, kings had to call nobles from the far corners of the kingdom in order to gain such approval.  This, of course, caused considerable problems.

Edward I solved these difficulties 1295 by calling the so-called Model Parliament.  With the established Parliament, its members, consisting of members of the nobility and clergy, met at regular intervals to establish public policy.

The origins of Parliament, then, lay in issues of governmental coffers.  As a descendent of the British Parliament, the American Congress assumed control of the new nation’s finances.  Without Congressional sanction, acts of the president were without funding, and of little effect.

The making of executive orders also involves problems of process.  Made only by one person, the president, an executive order lacks the supple shape of laws traditionally shaped by legislative compromise.

We should pay at least as much attention to the people we are to elect to Congress as we do to the person selected for the White House..  A good Congress can keep a dangerous president.  Members of Congress, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, voted in favor of George W. Bush’s plan to invade Iraq.  Had they done their work properly, the invasion may not have incurred.

Likewise, the current Congress, led by such recalcitrant members as Ted Cruz, refuses to act, or to cooperate with the president.  Certainly it is healthy to oppose a president on principal.

But the Congress has gone far beyond mere assertiveness.  The federal government has stagnated, and issues such as gun control and immigration remain unresolved.

Regardless this presidential election’s outcome, we should turn more attention to the Congress. If we cannot quite get back to the power pyramid envisioned in 1787, we should at least start holding Congress accountable for its actions and inactions.











Posted in News and politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment


A Tragedy in One Act

by Charles Lupia,

which should be shorter

Dramatis Personae

BILL CLINTON, former U.S. president

MELANIA TRUMP, former model

MICHELLE OBAMA, former hospital administrator


Place: A TV studio.

Time: Autumn, 2016.  Evening.

A television studio is equipped as a kitchen.  Trays are on counters, as are bowls, measuring cups, etc.

Dan Rather stands with microphone before a TV camera.  Near him, on each side, are Bill Clinton and Melania Trump.  As Dan speaks, Melania waves toward the camera, and Bill alternately dances and acts is if he is preparing for a boxing match.


Good evening, this is Dan Rather for a special evening.  We are here at a crucial event in the 2016 presidential election.  We have here two prospective first spouses-


First guy.

(Bill grins.  Dan looks at him.)

I’m the first guy.



Melania Trump-

(Melania waves at the camera.)

And former President Bill Clinton.

(Bill also waves.)


I’m gonna win this.


They are engaged in a contest to see who can come up with the best cookie recipe.


Ask not what your country can do for you.


Neither party has been very forthcoming about the ingredients they are using.



It’s a secret.

(Dan looks at his watch.)


And the time to begin is…now!


We are out of the gate!


The bakeoff has begun.  I’m going to give them some privacy.

(Dan moves to leave.)



Dan my man!

(As Dan exits, Bill gives him the thumbs up.  Melania produces a tray of already-shaped cookies.)

How’d you do that?


Donald tells me to be prepared.

(Melania puts her tray in the oven.)


You cheated.


You cheated.

(Bill takes another look at Melania.)


You’re a good lookin’ cheater.


You’re an old looking cheater.

(Trying to do his best with Melania’s comments, Bill starts to mix ingredients in a bowl.)


I tried to pay you a compliment.


And I’m trying to ignore you.


You shouldn’t be listening to what other people say about me.


And they say you’re a pig.

(Bill is a bit saddened by her comment.  He tastes a little of his mix.)


This tastes like crap.


(as if reciting something she’s learned)

Just like your economic policies.


My policies helped the country.

(Bill looks at a bottle of Jack Daniels.  He thinks about it.  He pours some whiskey into his mix.)

A little Jack Daniels helps, too.

(He tastes the mix.  He smiles.)

It’s a lot better.

(He pours more Jack Daniels in the mix.  He tastes again.)

A LOT better.

(Bill pours himself a glass of Jack Daniels.  He drinks.  He offers some

            to Melania.)

BILL (cont.)

Want some?

(Melania doesn’t answer.  Bill keeps looking at her.)



No, I do not.


More for me.

(Bill pours himself another glass.)

You live in Manhattan?


What about it?


I have an office… upper Manhattan.

(Melania stands by her oven.  Seeing her, Bill quickly puts down his glass,

            and starts placing prospective cookies on a tray.)

We could hang out some time.


Let’s not, and say we did.


(looking closely at her)

You’re not afraid of me.


The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

(Bill quickly takes his second glass of Jack Daniels.)


Need something to make you sound original.

(Bill takes another swig.  He places his cookie tray in the oven.  Melania takes hers out.  Bill takes a look at her cookies.)

Those look like Hillary’s cookies.


They’re mine!


It looks like you took Hillary’s recipe.


Here!  Watch this, swine!

(Melania quickly pours a glass of Jack Daniels, and gulps it down.)


That’s gotta make me look better.


You still look like a pig.

(Dan Rather returns.  He looks at his watch.)


The time is now up.

(Bill rushes to his oven, and pulls his cookies out.)

DAN (cont.)

Bill Clinton is disqualified.

(Bill puts his tray down in disgust.)


Come on now!

(Melania proudly shows her tray.  Dan takes a cookie of hers, and tastes it.)


Thank you.

(Bill comes forward.)


I’m comin’ back!  In the White House!  First guy.


(to Bill)





And the winner is-


Yo, Donald, we did it!

(Bill and Dan both look at Melania.)


-Michelle Obama.

(Bill and Melania both look in shock at Dan.)


It’s mine.


We have Michelle Obama here.


I was the last one standing.


You used Michelle Obama’s recipe.


I changed the sugar content.



(Michelle Obama enters, and approaches Dan Rather.  Bill claps.)


Michelle, it’s good to…

(Bill tries to put his hand on Michelle’s shoulder, but stops when Michelle gives him a very cold stare.)

…see you.


(to the TV audience)

Thank you, everyone.

(Bill embraces and attempts to kiss Melania.)


What are you doing?!

(Melania pushes him away.)


A little more sugar.


Get away from me!

(Melania gets away from him.)


I want to thank you all for thinking of me.

(Bill grabs the Jack Daniels bottle, and starts directly drinking from it.)

But cookies are bad for you.  You should throw away your cookies.


(holding his bottle)

That’s a little severe.

(Melania grabs a cookie from her tray.  Bill guzzles from his bottle.)


You should be eating vegetables from your garden.

(Melania approaches Bill.)


You want sugar?  Here, you can have sugar!

(Dan and Michelle look in horror as Melania crushes a cookie onto Bill’s face.  Bill takes the cookie, and eats it.)


Doesn’t taste half bad.

Posted in CAKES, News and politics, TV | Leave a comment


Maybe the truth isn’t so easy.

Maybe I can’t find a stand

to hang my badge of pride on.

Truth is in the wrestling.

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment


When you get on a subway in New York City, you see rows of people holding cellphones.  At restaurants in Syracuse, where I live, I’ve often seen entire families with cellphones: father, mother and children paying no attention to each other.

The cellphone is widely considered one of the main villains of modern life.  Actors on stage despise cellphone users.  And parishioners are inveigled at the beginning of church services to turn off their cellphones.

But just as rude as the people using cellphones are the patrons who rush out of theatres at the end of performances without bothering to applaud the actors.  And instead of worrying about cellphones, the clergy should better worry about people who gossip and socialize rather than spending their church time in medication or prayer.

The cellphone, after all, is a connection of sorts.  It’s also a symptom of larger problems in contemporary life, such as our failure to live in the moment or to appreciate or be fully considerate to the people we are with.

Recently my wife and I were in Hawaii.  We were pleased to see relatively few people using cellphones.  Here, in the tropics, were people finally able to enjoy life in the present.

Posted in social skills | Tagged , | Leave a comment


My property professor, Sam Fetters, used to say that the politics of academia are so vicious because the stakes are so small.

A week or so ago, I went up to see a longtime friend at his camp in the Adirondacks.  We’d been to the same law school some twenty-five years earlier.

At one point, when most of the people went outside to be by the lake, we started to talk about law school.  His daughter asked me, “How’d you like going to Syracuse?”

“I liked it,” I told her.

She looked closely at me.  “My father always says he hated it,” she said.

“That’s your father,” I told her.  “He always hated it.”

At least my friend is consistent.

In law school, I was quite busy.  In addition to carrying more than a full schedule of courses, I worked for a downtown law firm and engaged in student journalism.

In my second, or 2L year, I wrote art and music reviews for the university’s main newspaper, the Daily Orange.

But during some controversy, which I don’t remember, the dean of our law school made an outrageous public statement.  He said students were telling him such and such on something, and I knew that students would not be saying such things.  The dean’s statement was out of touch with reality.

I decided then to revive the law school’s newspaper, and that way keep tabs on the school’s administration.  A woman student who is now the county executive of my county was in charge of this newspaper in my second year.  Under her leadership, not one issue was published.

With the help of a guy from the school’s right-wing coalition, I revived the newspaper.  Without his contacts with the student senate, including his girlfriend, I would not have been given the newspaper.  We quickly became a politically-divided newspaper, but one that put out several issues nevertheless.

After we’d put out an issue or two in the fall, my friend, who now has the camp, expressed interest in writing an article.  He wrote an essay discussing the cutthroat competition rampant among students in the law school.

This brought him to the dean’s attention.  Apparently the dean walked about the law school for days after that snarling, “Who is this student?!  I’ll have plenty to say to him!”

The meeting, I don’t think, ever took place.  The dean apparently lost interest in my friend.  He had enough to do with his other interests, such as Victorian literature and tax law.  He had come to the school with the reputation of a brilliant scholar.

I never did keep tabs on this dean, despite my original intention.  The first invasion of Iraq by the Bush family made enough fallout.  Perhaps.

I did interview the dean in the spring semester with my co-editor.  It was the worst experience of my law school career.  We went into his office, where I could see brandy decanters.

He motioned for us to sit down.  So we sat down in miserably low chairs.  His chair, however, was quite high.  So when we looked across his desk at him, we had to look upward.

It all seemed like something out of a bad college movie.  Which one? I wondered.  Animal House?  Scared Straight?

Without quite looking at us, the dean leaned over his desk toward us.  “I review this interview before you publish it,” he said.  “This is a private school.  You have no first amendment rights.”

All true.  But it seemed out of place in higher education.  Not to mention a school where lawyers are taught to defend rights.

He then proceeded to tell us how his presence had benefited the law school.  He inferred that some students failed to appreciate this.  When my co-editor gave him a transcript of the interview, he made a number of changes.

But this wasn’t enough.  The dean hadn’t done himself enough justice.  My co-editor was called back to do a second interview, in which the dean further extemporized on all he had done for the school.

I kept telling myself that it didn’t matter that I didn’t go after the dean.  I would soon be graduating, and out practicing law.  The right wingers in our class had selected some judge named Clarence Thomas to speak at our graduation.

This was months before Thomas was named to the Supreme Court, and the sexual harassment controversy arose.  All I knew, from the ceremony, was that he was some guy with a weak handshake.  At our graduation, Judge Thomas spoke about family values.

I knew, in school, that a number of students were unhappy with the dean.  What I hadn’t counted on was the faculty’s anger.  The professors were close to mutiny when, three years after my graduation, the dean announced that he that he was leaving to become dean of a Midwestern law school.

A few years after that, he was listed simply as a faculty member there.  He was no longer a dean.

Posted in law and politics, law schools | Tagged | Leave a comment


The philosopher Hegel said that the only thing we learn from history is that governments never learn anything from history.

Since Franklin Roosevelt met with Ibn Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia, the U.S. has actively tried to shape the Middle East.  It has perpetually blundered.

Until 1955, Iran had a democratically-elected government.  In that year, the U.S. helped to overthrow the Iranian government.  This was replaced by the corrupt Shah, which led, in turn, to the revolution of 1978-79 and a radical government.

The U.S., under the Bushes, has twice invaded Iraq.  In the second attempt, under the younger Bush, the U.S. overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein.  This interference, done without any valid or realistic backup plan, led to years of war.  The Middle East was destabilized, and the climate was ripe for the rise of rampant Islamic extremism.

It should have been clear by the time Obama took office that the U.S. cannot impose democracy on other cultures.  But Obama, with his then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, continued the policy of the Bushes by instituting what they called the Arab Spring.  They supported the overthrow of the Egyptian and Libyan governments, and helped to further destabilize the Middle East.

Even now the U.S. bombs Syria, in violation of international law, as a way of combating ISIS.  The U.S. reports that it is successful in combating the Islamic State, but terrorism shows no sign of slowing down.

We would do better to concentrate on our security on the home front, and keep an eye on potential ISIS-inspired terrorists, such as the Orlando shooter.  We might also decide not to support policies that perpetuate governmental oppression on one hand and terrorist rebellion on the other.

But we should not be trying to impose our will on other cultures.

Posted in law and politics, News and politics | Tagged | Leave a comment