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)

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 13th, 2009 at 3:52 am and is filed under American Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.