>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/04/04 6:43 PM >>>
'I don't like this film being reduced to Bush vs. Kerry,' Moore tells
TIME
<<<<<>>>>>
and film should not be reduced to above even if moore were to think it
should be...
from aristotle to at least james harrington (with notable exception of
hobbes), western political thinkers were concerned with 'balance of
property'...
all but forgotten today, harrington's contribution was recognizing
england's mid-seventeenth century constitutional crisis in its
historical context, in contrast to
most of his contemporaries who saw the english civil wars as conflicts
between 'good' amd 'evil', harrington stressed that they were one
manifestation of historical process - collapse of medieval political
order and emergence of modern states...
harrington developed theory of economic foundation of political power
holding that in long run (i know, keynes later said we're all dead),
government must reflect distribution of property...
harrington attempted to show how traditional system of 'mixed monarchy'
in which political power had been shared by king, nobility, and clergy
had been founded upon feudal distribution of property, he asserted that
economic conditions that had made this government form feasible
('natural') had ceased to exist in 1600s... consequently, political
realignment was necessary/inevitable...
moore's film contains seeds of similar analysis - in popular format -
for present time (if one can get past baggage that moore himself brings
to table as well as simplistic notion that film is simply diatribe
against bushes)... michael hoover
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please Note:
Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from
College employees
regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon
request.
Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
