Part 5 of the Rahe interview deals with recovering liberty from soft despotism. Rahe is quite optimistic on this point as he feels that the internal contradictions of the welfare state will doom it in the near future. He cites the example of Social Security as an example. Essentially when the state guarantees your livelihood into old age this lessens the need to have kids. This change doesn’t happen over night but over a period of time people will have less and less children. Once this happens the society will no longer have the workers needed to keep Social Security going. Europe is far further along on this road than the US is, but make no mistake, the US is on the same path.

He sees the election of Barack Obama as a good thing as he has pushed things to the left so fast he has created an opposition movement (best represented by the tea party movement) that will begin to roll back the state.

Like Peter Robinson I am not nearly so sanguine on these prospects. I can not think of a society in history that has exchanged its liberty for security and been able to reverse it. Rahe tries to argue against this by pointing out the countries of Eastern Europe. I do not think this is apt as these countries had a hard despotism put upon them. Although this was overthrown (or collapsed) the appeal of soft despotism is still very strong. Most of these countries seem to want a European type welfare state of varying degrees. Even Czechoslovakia, which was at one time led by the very free market oriented Vaclev Klaus, is hardly any more free than its neighbors.

Peter Robinson then reads a quote from a Mark Steyn review of his book. This is not the quote Robinson mentions but I think it’s more apt:

The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make their own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and eventually (as we already see in Europe, Canada, American campuses, and the disgusting U.N. Human Rights Council) what you’re permitted to say and think.

Rahe makes a joke that of course Steyn feels this way because he’s Canadian. If he were British or American he would have memories of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The truth of the matter is although these two leaders talked a great game they at best held the state at bay during their tenures. Overall taxes were not lowered. No major government programs or departments were cut. Once people are used to getting something for nothing, it’s very difficult (maybe impossible) to take it away from them. Robinson makes this point in an article he wrote later. You can read it here:

http://ow.ly/Izv0

If Professor Rahe knew his Canadian history he might be surprised at what Canada can tell him about America today. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s there was a tremendous and growing grassroots concern for the size of Canada’s federal deficit and growing debt. There was a growing feeling among Canadians that something had to be done less Canada follow the example of New Zealand’s debt crisis in 1984. Neither of the major governing parties at that time, the opposition Liberals or the governing Progressive Conservatives, paid much attention to this. Like most political parties they were in the business of buying the votes of the people with their own money. The way you win elections is by promising people free stuff, not taking things away.

Although there were other factors this was one of the main themes the Reform party took up. Its election platform of 1993 actually outlined serious cuts to a wide variety of government programs. The Reform Party was serious and rode this wave of discontent to an impressive election showing in Canada’s 4 western provinces (it only ran candidates in the west at that time). The governing Progressive Conservatives were all but wiped out during this election.

With the Liberals in power and the Reform Party as a principled opposition the Liberals, after wasting a year, began to take the steps to eliminate Canada’s budget deficit. By 1998 the budget was balanced and Canada enjoyed surpluses for close to 10 years.

However since this shock of fiscal responsibility things are returning to the status quo in Canada. Through various machinations the old Reform Party was combined with the remnants of the PC party to become the Conservative Party. Under the leadership of Stephen Harper they have become a typical moderate right of center party. When I say “typical” I mean because they have rediscovered the joys of spending money they don’t have in an effort to buy votes. This is always the central dynamic in a democracy. When you can rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul’s vote (and you might be able to convince Peter to vote for you too, if you’re wily enough). The government is growing again and Canada is back into deficit, all under a “Conservative” government. There is currently no serious discussion of cutting back any government programs. Although Canada is still in a much healthier financial position than the States it appears as if we are back on the same track.

What does this mean for Rahe and America? I think it is VERY likely that America will swing wildly right in  2010 and 2012 (Obama will be defeated), electing candidates who preach fiscal discipline. I do not see his occurring in the form of a third party as American election laws make this almost impossible. Once they get in however it is not clear how much they will really cut, if at all. Even if they do the default position for a democracy overtime is to go back to offering voters something for nothing, exchanging liberty for security. America has the best chance at reversing this trend in the history of the world. I don’t think it will do it though.

From my reading of history, soft despotism leads to hard despotisms. When things are really bad people follow the strong man on the horse. But that’s a post for another day, I suppose.

Related articles by Zemanta

• George Jonas: The Tory malady – pussyfoot conservatism (network.nationalpost.com)

In the fourth part of the uncommon knowledge interview with Paul Rahe they start to discuss what has gone wrong with the dynamic American form of government that Tocqueville witnessed. Essentially Tocqueville was impressed with the way that the American system empowered citizens with control over their own lives. This was accomplished via the institutions of local government, civic institutions, religion and family. The story in America in the late 19th and 20th centuries has been how the federal government has slowly but surely usurped and undermined these institutions, primarily through the use of grants and mandates.

One of his favorite examples is that of the Buckley amendment. Buckley was a New York, Libertarian (!) senator who had long held a grudge that his collage alma matter had sent his (presumably poor) grades home to his parents. He therefore inserted into a federal spending bill that any collage that accepts federal money MUST respect students privacy. Therefore in his case young Buckley would have not had to suffer the embarrassment of his parents learning about his grades.

Rahe then tells the story from his own experience of a student who attended his first class and did not attend again for some time. He looked into this and learned this student had become a binge drinker at a Frat house. As he teaches at Hillsdale Collage (the only collage that doesn’t accept federal money of any kind) he was able to inform the students parents of this. However if Hillsdale had accepted federal money he would not have been able to do this due to the Buckley amendment.

Which makes more sense? Allowing adults to make decisions that directly effect their jobs and situations in which they are intimately familiar or allowing a distant Washington to make those decisions in advance? Which is more likely to create self reliant citizens as opposed to subjects? To Tocqueville and Rahe the answer is obvious. The more control a citizen has over himself and the institutions which with he deals with everyday the better. Centralizing this power at the Federal level will always weaken these institutions.

At the beginning of his talk he briefly mentions how progressives started to take over the university system in the 1880’s. This started to move the emphasis from individual rights towards more of a collective good model represented by the civil service. This is apparently based on the German model. I am curious as to how and why he thinks this occurred.

Another big moment in America’s slide into soft despotism is the adoption of the 16th and 17th amendments. The 16th amendment allowed for the creation of the income tax which allowed the government to take in as much money as it wanted to. This is true although I suspect the creation of the federal reserve system and national money is actually far more important than this. When you allow the government to print as much money as it wants, what do you expect?

The 17th amendment allowed for senators to be elected. To Rahe this is significant as when the senators were appointed by state legislators it gave the states a powerful voice at the federal level. When they became elected it becomes much easier for the federal government to influence them against their states interests.

In part 3 of the Uncommon Knowledge interview with Paul Rahe Peter Robinson and Paul Rahe explore the 4 characteristics of American culture that tend to protect it from the slide into  soft despotism. These are:

Local Government – Local government is accessible. If you want something done or change there is a possibility of getting it done at the local level. In the early American Republic if you wanted to build a school, road or hospital you did it locally. The distant federal government didn’t do very much. This gives people a feeling of power and control over their own lives and surroundings. This helps fight the feeling of helplessness and ankiatude (there’s that word again, which I am spelling wrong) that can bedevil free republics.

Civic Association – Unlike France, American’s did things through private associations. Like local government this gives people power over their own lives (not to mention that it is most likely much more effective)

Religion – Americans in Tocqueville’s time were shockingly religious, unlike France. Religion puts a certain responsibility on the individual that you are the master of your own soul. This provides a sense of dignity as well as areas of your life which you will not allow anyone to encroach upon.

Family – During this time the French family was not in great shape. Adultery was common. This was not the case in America. The women were strong minded and kept the men inline.

It seems to me that the stronger the central government gets the more it weakens all 4 of these institutions. You have seen this throughout the western world to varying degrees and America is far from untouched.

Take Religion, for example. If the government already has a substantial control over your life why pray to God? If government is already promising you everything you need doesn’t it tend to “Crowd God Out”? Is it any wonder than in the advanced welfare states of Europe (not to mention Canada) that religion is dying?

Same thing with Family. What are the ties that bind? If the government promises to take care of you in your old age via social security, why have kids? Is this not the driving factor behind the falling birth rates in most western nations?

In part 2 of soft despotism with Paul Rahe he attempts to explain the appeal of soft despotism for the ruling class as well as the citizens.

For the ruling class he points out that we all have a natural bias in our minds that we know better than other people. The more educated one becomes, the more this bias is intensified. The desire to rule other people lives, for their benefit, of course, is a strong one.

For citizens the appeal derives from the anxiety of freedom. Rahe uses the term “Ankitude” (which I’m probably spelling wrong) to describe a feeling of fear, of not knowing what to do, which can effect people in free societies. Rahe points to the examples of college seniors who can become gripped with fear in their senior years. For their entire lives they’ve been on an academic track. Now what do they do? What are they going to do with the rest of their lives? What good is their communications degree anyway?

Peter Robinson, further exploring this point, tells the story of Russians experiencing life in America for the first time. The sight of so many choices in a supermarket could be literally overwhelming.

From my perspective Rahe’s point of having an educated, governing class that wants power to help others as they do not know enough to run their own lives is interesting. However I don’t feel it is the full story. Although some with a progressive mindset may be motivated by this it is also a way to greater political power, economic power, and therefore status within a society.

For example take the individual who spends a great deal of time getting a degree in philosophy. He feels he’s important, that he knows a lot. Yet in a free society a high school dropout can invent the sticky note and make millions. How does the philosophy major feel? He can try and invent something useful too but that’s not what philosophy majors are good at. Rather he might stumble into government and create rules to govern the sticky note guy. With the power to pass laws he becomes an important person. He is now “above” the sticky note guy. However he doesn’t actually contribute anything to society.

An example of this might be someone like Al Gore. I know he sits on several boards, including Apple. What does he actually do? I know he invented the internet, but is he actually involved in creating new products at Apple? Rather it is probably useful for Apple to have someone like Gore on board if he needs to get something done as Gore with his connections can get things through the bureaucracy.

Another interesting thing Rahe mentions is the fear that grips collage seniors when their schooling is almost up. Isn’t this a condemnation somewhat of the entire educational process? Throughout a students life the one thing he learns is how to follow orders. You’re told what to study, when to study, and then graded on what you’ve done as to whether it’s any good or not. You DO NOT LEARN TO THINK FOR YOURSELF. YOU DO NOT LEARN TO FOLLOW YOUR OWN PASSIONS. In this way cannot compulsory schooling, as it does not prepare people to be free thinking citizens, be considered an enemy of republican virtue’s? How much formal education did the founding fathers have anyway?

Below is an interesting video which talks about education and how the system really only trains people to become professors.

I’m also a little puzzled as to why Rahe thinks people don’t want to live under a nanny. If you can enjoy all the freedoms of adulthood without the responsibilities, who isn’t going to go for that? For the individual and society this ultimately turns out to be a Siren’s call. However I don’t think it’s surprising that the original song sounds so sweet.

In my effort to further understand where America is and where it is going I’ve been reading Paul A. Rahe’ “Soft Despotism – Democracy’s Drift”. I’m finding it a tough read so far but worth it. Below is Part 1 of an interview that Peter Robinson did with Paul Rahe for the “Uncommon Knowledge” program. Below is the video for part 1 and my thoughts are below.

After talking about health care for a bit he talks about Montesquieu who saw governance in terms of three models:

Monarchies – Are ruled by Kings but are typically limited in power, usually by the nobility. They are driven my honor.
Despotisms – Are ruled by despots who wield unlimited power and are driven by  terror
Republics – Equality is assumed. Ruled by citizen legislators and driven by virtue.

Montesquieu is quite taken with the English method of governance, which he calls “The Beautiful System”. He sees it as being beautiful as it contains a class of people, english merchants, whose well being is not dependent on the governing class. When the government becomes corrupt it is possible for this class to “throw the bums out”, if you will.

Tocqueville, writing 100 years later, sees the same virtuous system taking root in the young American Republic. However he is observing America in the aftermath of the French Revolution which he sees as a watershed. Equality is now firmly operating as a principle in America. Given this Tocqueville sees little chance of a true, authoritarian Despotism taking hold here. As this is the case what problems might occur?

This is where the idea of “Soft Despotism” comes in. In America it is impossible for a despot to gain power through terror, as was traditionally done. However it is possible for a despot to gain power through offering to help people. Slowly, slyly, overtime the despot (which will not be a single person, but a governing class) can gain power. The offers of help always come with strings attached.

The idea of virtue being a defining yet difficult characteristic to achieve aspect of Republics is an idea echoed in Codevilla’s “Character of Nations”. Virtue is the idea that you are willing to sacrifice your own personal gain for the good of the Republic. Translated to the real world this means that you do not join the governing class to get rich or even as a vocation. You do it out of a sense of obligation to serve your country. In most countries, to one degree or another, this is not the case. Wealth is not gained by producing, but by controlling other men. As soft despotism seeps into the bones of the body politic more and more people seek to use the power of government to get ahead. Not only does this imperil the prosperity of the country but it will slowly destroy the characteristic of virtue which is necessary to sustain the republic. The fact that America has acquired a permanent governing class (see senators and congressmen, but also the bureaucracy, who make those roles their lives) tells me that America’s slide to soft despotism is already quite acute.

On another note. Paul Rahe has written a bit about the Obama administration at PowerLine. Check it out here:

http://ow.ly/IGT9

Chapter 6 of Angelo Codevilla’s “The Character Of Nations” is entitled Civility. By “Civility” he doesn’t mean politeness.  Rather he discusses what qualities it takes to be a citizen and what kinds of civic qualities different kinds of regimes encourage.

To Codevilla, a civil society made up of citizens is one in which the rulers are bound by the same rules as the ruled. This is why taking an oath of office is so symbolically important in western countries. When a ruler is sworn in he is subjecting himself or herself to a greater power. Citizens must have clearly defined rights which the rulers must respect. The most important of these is property rights, meaning that you have a right to your own life, the fruits of your own labour and that these cannot be arbitrarily taken from you. People who enjoy such liberties have a long term stake in society and tend to take a propriety interest in their surroundings. These reinforce the habits of virtue and freedom which support the rule of law and are the bulwark of civil society. Citizenship means the possibility of ruling as well as being ruled. It means being able to participate in decisions both large and small that may affect your own life.

To Codevilla true citizenship is largely a pretense in the modern world. Rather than being citizens, most people are content to be subjects. They are happy to live their lives as consumers of government services. Merely being able to vote in different rulers who promise to dispense the goodies is not an act of citizenship.

Codevilla mentions de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America“. De Tocqueville wrote this book in an effort to contrast the faux citizenship engendered by the French Revolution vs the real thing in America. The question is I suppose is if America is remaining true to it’s roots of true citizenship or is it falling for the siren’s call of the subject. Something to think about.

I recently came across a great article that I think goes a long way to explaining what made America great. You can check it out here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherMerola/2009/09/15/a_republic,_if_you_can_keep_it

Below is a rather long comment I wrote relating to it.

This is a great article. I’m currently working on a documentary which looks at where America has been, where it is now and where it is going. One of the questions I want to answer is just what made America so extraordinary in the first place? I think this article is big piece of that puzzle. The founders wanted a Republic, not a Democracy.

One of the animating features of all of the Anglo / American systems, with America being the greatest example, is that individual success was least dependent on government than at anytime in history. Is this changing? To me it seems that it has been changing for some time. When you can rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul’s vote.

Here is a thought of mine that I believe is crucial but is esoteric to most people. If you want to maintain a Republic that is of the people, by the people and for the people you must have a hard currency that is separate from the government. If you do not do this you place the government above the people. Consider this scenario.

I’m a politician seeking Peter and Paul’s vote. They each have $10 of a non fiat currency (most likely backed by gold). I say to Peter “Hey Peter, what can I give you for my vote?” Peter says “I want free education”. “Great”, I say. I then take take $5 from Paul, keep $3 for myself, and give $2 to Peter. “Here’s your free education! Thanks for your vote!”

I then turn to Paul. “What can I offer you for your vote Paul?” Paul wants free healthcare. “Great, I say”. I then turn to Peter, take $5 from him, keep $3 for myself, and give $2 to Paul. “Here’s your healthcare! Thanks for you vote”.

Now, Peter and Paul are not stupid. They are going to quickly realize that I now have $6 whereas they now have only $7 each. They obviously would have been better off to get the stuff they wanted on their own without going through me,  the inefficient government.

However consider the same scenario if I am able to counterfeit the money. When Peter or Paul asks for their free stuff I no longer have to tax them honestly. Instead I can just print up the money. For a brief period it would appear that they both will have gotten something for nothing. Of course, however, this is an illusion which inflation will soon destroy. Not before I’m elected though.

A system based on fiat currency changes the nature of government from the power residing with the people to those in political power. This undermines a Republic and puts it on the rode to a self destructive Democracy.

Just my two bits.

If you have any thoughts on this feel free to visit my blog at angrybeaverfilms.com. I’m also looking for answers to the following questions:

• What qualities make America extraordinary?
• What are some examples of American exceptionalism?
• What do Americans take for granted about America?
• What does the world take for granted about America?
• is America’s character changing? If so how and why is it changing and what is it changing into? What are the consequences of these changes for itself and the world?

I’ve only just started work on this project but any thoughts are welcome.

Best,

Dave

Related articles by Zemanta

• Only Criminals Use Honest Money (riseuprochester.org)