This dissertation examines the political thought of Cicero in order to shed light on the question of the extent to which politics is or can be made rational. Much of modern political science and policy-making treats citizens as calculating pursuers of interests and preferences, if not as consistently rational. But this view has been powerfully challenged by evidence that human beings are far less adept at the determination and pursuit of our preferences than we believe ourselves to be. As a result, political scientists and policy-makers alike have begun to grapple with the question of how regimes committed to self-government ought to address the limits of our rational capacity, not only in the crafting of particular policies, but also in the rethinking of foundational and constitutional principles and institutions. By considering Cicero's presentation of virtue and republican politics together with his analysis of the popular philosophical schools that were widely influential in his day, I show that Cicero recognizes and reflects on the pervasive irrationality in human decision-making. Like our modern critics of the irrationality of republicanism, the popular philosophical schools of Cicero's day both deprecated politics for its inherent unreasonableness and sought to make the world as they experienced it conform to strict rules of reason. Through a reading of Cicero's evaluation and critique of the schools in De Finibus, De Natura Deorum, and De Officiis, this dissertation aims to shed light not only on his account of the limits of reason in the political arena and the danger of attempting to overcome them, but also on his insistence that the irrational parts of human nature are the source of much that is beneficial in republican politics. Only by understanding this aspect of Cicero's thought can we understand his reflections on the virtues of republicanism.

What is the good life? Posing this question today would likely elicit very different answers. Some might say that the good life means doing good - improving one's community and the lives of others. Others might respond that it means doing well - cultivating one's own abilities in a meaningful way. But for Aristotle these two distinct ideas - doi...

The 2016 election has inspired millions of U.S. citizens-and struck panic in the hearts of millions more. This book explains the allure of Trump, examines how Trump's success ties into the hopes and fears of many Americans, and calls into question the limitations of our democratic system. Across the United States and around the world, people are struggling to understand why so many turned to Donald Trump-an individual described as rude and insensitive at best, and as racist, hateful, and ignorant at worst-as their champion. Trump's nomination as the Republican presidential candidate, and his subsequent election to president of the United States, upended many long-held assumptions and beliefs about politics, such as the inevitable power of superfunding election syndicates and the need for presidential candidates to have governance experience and broad knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs. Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump takes a serious, scientific look at Trump and his politics against the backdrop of modern American society. It brings together experts from a variety of psychological and political science fields to answer the mystifying question of why people by the millions would follow a leader who to so many others seems unqualified, undiplomatic, and in opposition to previously established standards for a national leader. Readers will gain an understanding of how little a role rationality plays in political choices, particularly-but not always-among citizens of certain socioeconomic backgrounds; and why Trump's apparently divisive attitudes and prejudices, his lack of "political correctness," and his hubris appeal to so many voters. The book also raises questions about our democratic processes, and our need for more thoughtful political cultures to ensure that citizens are adequately prepared to make important leadership decisions that will affect the future of our nation's economy, social norms, and global safety.

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • The acclaimed social psychologist challenges conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to conservatives and liberals alike—a “landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself” (The New York Times Book Review). Drawing on his twenty-five years of groundbreaking research on moral psychology, Jonathan Haidt shows how moral judgments arise not from reason but from gut feelings. He shows why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have such different intuitions about right and wrong, and he shows why each side is actually right about many of its central concerns. In this subtle yet accessible book, Haidt gives you the key to understanding the miracle of human cooperation, as well as the curse of our eternal divisions and conflicts. If you’re ready to trade in anger for understanding, read The Righteous Mind.

Examines Aristotle's approaches to how to develop a political community based on the notions of justice and friendship.

A growing frustration with “spin doctors,” doublespeak, and outright lying by public officials has resulted in a deep public cynicism regarding politics today. It has also led many voters to seek out politicians who engage in “straight talk,” out of a hope that sincerity signifies a dedication to the truth. While this is an understandable reaction to the degradation of public discourse inflicted by political hype, Elizabeth Markovits argues that the search for sincerity in the public arena actually constitutes a dangerous distraction from more important concerns, including factual truth and the ethical import of political statements. Her argument takes her back to an examination of the Greek notion of parrhesia (frank speech), and she draws from her study of the Platonic dialogues a nuanced understanding of this ancient analogue of “straight talk.” She shows Plato to have an appreciation for rhetoric rather than a desire to purge it from public life, providing insights into the ways it can contribute to a fruitful form of deliberative democracy today.

Lakoff takes a fresh look at how we think and talk about politics and shows that political and moral ideas develop in systematic ways from our models of ideal families. Arguing that conservatives have exploited the connection between morality, the famility and politics, while liberals have failed to recognize it, Lakoff expalins why the conservative moral position has not been effectively challenged.