The official dedication of the Martin Luther King Memorial had to be postponed because of Hurricane Irene. Harry Johnson, Sr, president of the memorial foundation, consulted with Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and the National Park Service and made the decision to postpone the ceremony until late September or early October.

That did not dissuade Martin Luther King's old fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, from holding their own dedication. The event turned into a desultory dedication, filled with gaffes.

First, the ceremony was sparsely attended. The National Park Service anticipated 250,000 for the official dedication. The Alpha Phi Alpha event was attended by . . . well . . . hundreds. Thousands of empty fold out chairs filled the Mall.

Second, the Reverend Bernice King, daughter of the civil rights leader, delivered a disjointed dedication speech that possessed none of the rhetorical flair of her father.

Third, during the speech King alluded to Lincoln and his signing of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, of course, wrote and signed the Declaration. Lincoln used the Declaration's core ideas in his speech dedicating the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, PA. Although conservative pundits noted the error, mainstream media outlets gave her the pass that they never allow for conservative female speakers.

Finally, the symbolic location of the King Memorial eluded Ms. King. The memorial sits between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials because King sought to remind Americans of their ideals as articulated by those two men and how we needed to starting living up to those ideals.

Instead, Bernice King tried to create her own symbolism and only confounded traditional symbolism in the process. In an effort to elevate her father at the expense of Lincoln, she somehow found meaning in the fact that King is standing and Lincoln is seated in their respective memorials.

Traditionally, however, the symbolic significance of a seated leader is not deference but authority. That is why kings have thrones. While the United States is a republic and not a monarchy, Lincoln's seat represents judgment and justice.

One standing near the authority is a mere attendant. Sorry, Ms. King, despite the great achievements of your father, Lincoln is not taking a “backseat” to anyone.

Cicero wrote De re publica as a dialogue in which the main character, the triumphant general in the Punic Wars, Scipio, instructs his listeners about the history and meaning of the Roman republic as Cicero witnessed its slow death.

According to Cicero, “Our Roman constitution . . . did not spring from the genius of an individual, but of many; and it was established, not in the lifetime of a man, but in the course of ages and centuries.” It borrowed from many nations but improved upon these borrowings.

He says that like Sparta, Rome had a government that mixed monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, In his account, Romulus founded Rome as its first monarch. He later “formed a royal council or senate of the chief noblemen, who were entitled by the affection of the people Patres, or Patricians.” This group became the hereditary body representing the aristocracy of Rome's founding families. Although advisory in nature, the Senate dominated the government. Romulus also formed a comitia (assembly) representing the tribes. This became the poplar assembly or democratic branch. Although the Senate and comitia changed over time, they formed the essence of the Roman republic.

The kinship, too, changed over time. Cicero credited Rome with recognizing “the importance of appointing a king, not for his family, but for his virtue and experience.” Eventually, the kingship was abolished in favor of an elected executive called the Consul.

Consequently, a republic came to designate a different type of government that those three fundamental types into which Aristotle originally classified all regimes. Instead of a monarcy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, a republic mixed all three elements.  Essentially a version of Aristotle's polity, a republic meant a constitution in which separate assemblies representing the affluent and the poor enabled both classes to participate in sovereignty and one in which there was no hereditary monarch.

Cicero's celebration of the Roman republic proved short lived. Caesar eventually overthrew the republic. He kept the form of the constitution even while he ruled as a dictator. After his assassination, a complex power struggle ensued. During the course of that power struggle, Cicero was declared an enemy of the state and executed in 43BC.

Cicero experienced something of a resurrection , however, when Renaissance thinkers began exploring an alternative to the Christian monarchies that dominated Europe at that time. They called it a republic.

But if this was a listening tour about jobs, the most important job that the President wants to save is his own.

An additional brouhaha erupted when media outsets reported that the bus was manufactured by a Canadian company Prevost. If this is a jobs tour, why purchase product that only creates jobs in Canada?  The report, however, proved to be a partial truth. Prevost manufactured the exterior shell of the bus, amounting to about half the cost. An American company, Hemphill Brothers Coaches of White Creek, Tennessee manufactured the luxury interior. Hemphill, which boasts such clients as Pink, Beyonce, and Keith Urban, says that its coaches allow “top entertainers to travel efficiently without losing the luxury of home.”

He carries with him the same so-called Texas swagger as George Bush the Younger. Some analysts remain skeptical about how well this go over outside the South, especially after eight years of Bush II and the inglorious end to those years.

Perry established his credentials among conservative evangelicals with his participation in The Response prayer meeting at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Although a small turnout of 8,000 in a stadium that holds 70,000 made the revival a flop of sorts, free publicity courtesy of the lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation only served to make Perry an even more attractive candidate. (In a different way, however, from that expressed Bill Clinton, who called him a "good lookin' rascal." Maybe Bill plays now for the other team in more ways than one.)

With that behind him, Perry began establishing his credentials as a “jobs creator.” Even before he announced his candidacy, media outlets contrasted the successful “Texas model” of low taxation and low regulation in stimulating business growth with the “California model” that impedes it.

Of course, much of this has to do more with Texas itself than with Rick Perry. Texas is a low tax, low regulation, and low service state by design. The state constitution requires the assembly of the Texas Legislature EVERY OTHER YEAR. Serving as a representative in the Texas Legislature is pretty much a part-time job for lawyers and real estate agents. They meet for few months to fine tune things and then return to real life. The drafters of the Texas constitution apparently believed that the fewer the meetings of the state legislature, the fewer the opportunities to mess things up.

The question evoked a chorus of boos from the audience. The question seemed appropriate enough. She on one occasion had asserted her religious belief that a wife should submit to her husband, yet she seeks the highest political office in the country. York gave her an opportunity to clear up the apparent incongruity between those desires.

But is this what the Bible says? The text to which York alluded is found in Paul's letter to a church a Ephesus. In this letter, he writes:

A little word study makes this even clearer. The Greek word for submit is hupotasso. It means to obey, to submit, to subordinate. The same word is used in commands for believers to obey God Almighty as in James 4:7, for Christians to obey the laws as in Romans 13:1, and for slaves to obey masters as in Titus 2:9.

Some Christians might claim that this text refers only to the home. Paul did write, however, that wives are to submit in “everything.”

Bachmann might be referring, however, to another passage in the letter in which Paul, after exhorting husbands to love their wives, summarizes his teaching in the following manner:

“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Some moderns translations, as a concession to modern sensibilities, render the word reverence as respect. But even this will not do. The Greek word used in this text for respect is phobeo, which means to be frightened, alarmed, or in awe. Again, the ideas of fear and awe differ considerable from respect.

At any rate, Bachmann received praise from most analysts for her answer. She communicated the essence of our modern views of marriage, which differs considerable from those in ancient Israel. Perhaps it will put the issue to rest so that the electorate can focus on more substantive issues. The exchange, however, does illustrate the way one's private religious beliefs can intrude into public affairs. President Barak Obama, of course, learned that lesson not too long ago.

The state's concern with the virtue of its citizens is not merely of antiquarian or religious interest. Over the last three decades, a revolution in the understanding of our nation's founding has unfolded within the academic world. Historians J.G.A. Pocock, Gordon Wood, and Lance Banning resurrected this ancient idea and argued that it, rather than liberty, best serves as the organizing principle of our understanding of the American founding. A future post will weigh that proposition.

The state's role in cultivating virtue in its citizens makes explicit the connection between Aristotle's The Politics and its “prequel,” Ethics. In this book, Aristotle defined happiness as the “rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” Men are to use reason to cultivate specific intellectual and moral virtues or excellencies identified by Aristotle.

These virtues, however, can only be acquired, developed, and practices within organized society.

“For as man is the best of all animals when he has reached his full development, so he is the worst of all when divorced from law and justice. Injustice armed is hardest to deal with; and though man is born with weapons which he can use in the service of practical wisdom and virtue, it is all too easy for him to use them for he opposite purposes. Hence, man without virtue is the most savage, the most unrighteous, and the worst in regard to sexual license and gluttony. The virtue of justice is a feature of a state; for justice is the arrangement of the political association and a sense of justice decides what is just.”

Virtue and justice are found within the state. And he calls “that state best ordered in which the possibilities for happiness is greatest.” That is why, according to Aristotle, any student of ethics must be a student of politics.

The concern with virtue, in fact, defines a state. According to Aristotle, “that which is genuinely and not just nominally called a state must concern itself with virtue.” He rejects the modern conceptions of the state. He contends that “the state is not an association of people dwelling in the same place, established to prevent its member from committing injustice against each other, and to promote transactions. Certainly all these feature must be present,” but more is needed. In his view, the purpose is “a perfect and self-sufficient life” in which the citizen live together “happily and nobly.” The associate of the state exists “for the sake of noble actions.”

The reference to “noble actions” suggests a caveat concerning Aristotle's views on virtue. They are decidedly elitist. One purpose of the virtues is the acquisition of wealth. In his words, “It is not by means of external goods that men acquire and keep the virtues, but the other way round.” Possession of the intellectual and moral virtues lead to the possession of adequate material goods. And only a person with adequate material goods possesses the leisure time required to participate meaningfully in public life. Consequently, in an aristocratic constitution, mechanics and day laborers cannot participate and therefore are not full citizens. Only in Aristotle's mixed constitution allow both the noble and the common persons to participate fully as citizens.

Aristotle recognized, however, the existence of another segment of society—the middle class. He asked,

“What is the best constitution and what is the best life for the majority of states and the majority of men? We have in mind men whose virtue does not rise above that of ordinary people, and whose education does not depend on the luck either of their natural ability or of their resources.”

He believed the middle orders of people serve to moderate the vices possess by the rich and the poor. “The former,” according to Aristotle, incline more to arrogance and crime on a large scale while the latter are more than averagely prone to wicked ways and petty crime.”

In addition, the middle orders of people are more secure from possessing the vices of covetousness and from becoming the victims of covetousness. “It is the middle citizens in a state who are the most secure: they neither covet, like the poor, the possessions of others, nor do others covet theirs as the poor covet those of the rich. So they live without risk, not scheming and not being schemed against.”

This helps prevent the rise of class based factions in the city-state. Class based factions plagued the Greek city-states and in many cases contributed to the degeneration of their democracies into tyrannies. In Aristotle's view, class based factions emerge when classes seek a large share in the constitution based upon their particular version of justice. The poor claim that “those who are equal in any respect are equal absolutely. All are like free, therefore they claim that they are alike absolutely.” In contrast, the rich assume that “being unequal in wealth they assume themselves to be unequal absolutely.” Consequently, according to Aristotle, “whenever either side does not share in the constitution according to their fundamental assumption in each case, they form factions.” In a constitution where “the middle element is large,” however, “there least of all arise factions and divisions among the citizens. And large states are freer from faction, from this same reason, namely that their middle element is large.”

Aristotle maintained that a such a well-mixed constitution will prove to be the longest lasting.

Although Aristotle's observations pertained to the city-states of his time, they possess some validity for contemporary America. The existence of our large middle class softens the class conflict between rich and poor. Such conflict has resulted in small changes to our constitution rather than convulsive, violent alterations. Consequently, we have the oldest written constitution in the world.

He did describe, however, a kind of government that later assumed that name. He called it a polity.

By polity Aristotle meant a popular government that rules in the common interest of the city-state. The best means of crafting such a constitution is to include both poor and rich in the administration of the state.

Aristotle proposed several ways to accomplish this. First, the laws could require the state to pay the poor for attending and to fine the rich for not attending the meetings of the assembly. This would encourage participation of both orders. Second, the laws could assess a small property requirement for participation in the assembly. This requirement would give the majority a share in the constitution and yet might increase the influence of the more affluent, educated members of the city-state. Finally, the laws could divide the different parts of the government between the different orders.

Aristotle suggested that the laws establish a popular assembly with no property qualifications to insure the poor a share in the constitution. In contrast, he suggested a property qualification for the offices of the state. Moreover, instead of filling of offices by lot, as was the case in most democracies, they should be filled by elections. In this way, the people might choose those they believed best to rule for the common interest of the city-state. This introduces an aristocratic element into the constitution.

This constitution, which Aristotle called not the ideal but the best obtainable, mixes democracy and aristocracy. Under such a constitution, the mass of the people would dominate the assembly and the judicial element, while the aristocrats or notables would dominated the offices that managed the city-state between meetings of the assembly..

It was this general idea of a mixed regime that came to be identified as a republic and which endured until the time of the founding of the United States.