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?