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 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.