PART ONE OF TWO POSTS

Did Pound believe in the Constitution or ever use the word "democracy"?


I want to thank Robert Spoo for responding in such detail to one of my
recent posts.  I also would like to express my gratitude for, and sympathy
with, the posts Bill Freind has written on the issue of Pound's
anti-democratic stance.  I will try to reply to Robert Spoo without
repeating Bill Freind's points (which are in great harmony with my own
view).


Robert said,

>         In my view, the trouble with much of this thread--as exemplified
>by this excerpt--is the level of abstraction at which key terms operate.
>Did Pound "believe" in the Constitution?  Of course he did, and he said so
>again and again, to anyone who would listen and to those who wouldn't.  I
>am told by Omar Pound that Ezra's first question to many new visitors to
>St. Elizabeths was, "Have you read the Constitution?"

I would still like to see a statement to the effect that Pound BELIEVED in
the Constitution, and explaining which parts he believed in and why.  His
saying , "Have you read the Constitution does not prove he believed either
its essential premises, or in any particular tenets expressed in that
document."  More on that issue below.

As to what Pound "believed, "one American journalist records,

  The day of Pearl Harbor, Pound unexpectedly came
  to our house and told us the war between the United
  States and Italy was inevitable but that he intended
  to stay on.  [I] told him that he would be a traitor if he
  did so, and now was the time for him to pipe down about
  the alleged glories of Fascism.  "BUT I BELIEVE IN FASCISM,"
  said Pound, giving the Fascist salute, "and I want to
  defend it . . .
   (Reynolds and Eleanor Packard, Balcony Empire,
     Chatto & Windus, 1943, 179).

Is there any similar statement about the US Constitution, the American
Republic, or democracy.  (Pound also said, several times --- this is a
direct literal quote --  "I believe in the TA HIO"  (referring to the
neo-Confucian text).


>Pound would vehemently asseverate that he "believed" in the
>Constitution.

Where and when?  Give me the quote, and explicate it please.

>But Wei seems to assume that there is a certain
>"democratic" (another lofty word), and therefore self-evidently valid, way
>to believe in the Constitution.

Why do you assume the word "democratic" is lofty?  It has a precise meaning
like any other word:  "Government by the people exercised directly or
through elected representatives."   Interpeted etymologically it refers to
the demos, which means [not simply "the people" but the common people].
Questions:  Is it the word that is too lofty, or is it Pound who is too
lofty to give his assent to the basic principle of representative
government?  If Pound believes in "aristo-democracy" as was recently implied
by the presentation of one quote, what is meant by "aristo-democracy"?  Is
it not an oxymoron, if we understand the meaning of the root word "demos" ?

Further, I must ask:  Do you believe in democracy; and if so, how do you
conceive it?  I ASK THIS QUESTION of all the self proclaimed defenders of
Pound who have not put forth their view.

>Justice Blackmun believed that the
>Constitution contained an inherent right of women to privacy from state
>interference in matters of abortion; Justices Thomas and Scalia do not
>believe in that Constitution.

I don't think any of the Justices would put it quite this way.  The
CONSTITUTION sets out the precise way in which cases are be adjudicated.
Thomas, Scalia, and Blackmun all believe in that constitution, act according
to its principles, and citizens abide by the verdicts of the Supreme Court.
Of course there are interpretations,  but there are DEMOCRATIC means by
which disagreements are mediated; and there are checks and balances, to
prevent any of the three branches from becoming absolutely despotic.  If
Pound had had his way, all the democratic regimes in Europe would have been
overthrown, including Britain and France, Holland, Denmark, and the whole of
Scandinavia (which had admirable constitutional traditions) and fascism
would have held sway.  If Pound had had his way, the Axis Powers would have
been victorious, and Japan would have destroyed America's constitutional
system (or maybe Pound thought the Japanese imperialists would have
"rectified" our constitution?)

>Chief Justice Warren believed that a
>Constitution that permitted a state to operate segregated schools was not
>a "democratic" Constitution, yet the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson at the
>end of the last century believed that such a Constitution was deeply
>democratic.  And so forth.
>

Yes.  Democracies evolve.  Pound's path would have had European states
DE-volve.

At this point in the conversation I asked:

> > Where did he enunciate his understanding of the Constitution?
> > Where in the Cantos did he actually quote any part of the Constitution,
>in
> > support of the basic principles which are antithetical to fascsim,
>namely
> > the rule of law over men, the system of checks and balances, and the
>vesting
> > of the supreme power of law-making, and the power of the purse in an
>elected
> > legislature?  When he spoke favorably of the Constitution, and I admit
>he
> > did (in the vaguest terms) what was the context, and what he saying
>about
> > the Constitution?  If he liked the Constituion , what did he like about
>it?
>

You replied:

>         I confess--without meaning to be spiteful--that I find this
>statement very disturbing from a person who holds forth so eloquently and
>voluminously about Pound.

What statement?  I asked a series of four questions.  I want answers to what
I feel are perfectly reasonable questions.  Is there something about the
form of the questions which needs correction?  I did not think you were
being spiteful here at all.  However I would still like answers to the
questions.

(continued in next post)
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com