Democracy plus a constitution with rule of law

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/01/obama-green-lighting-muslim-brotherhood-participation-in-egyptian-government/

Obama's insistence that the Muslim Brotherhood be peaceful and democratic means nothing if there's not a focus on a constitution and the establishment of rule of law, not rule of the Biggest Gang. Not that it's up to the US to create Egypt's new government, but if we're going to participate rhetorically, and if Egypt is going to receive our aid, the least Obama can do is make sure the difference is clear between meaningful democracy and mob rule. Open and fair elections only mean that the majority wins, and if the government's power is not limited by a Constitution, it will likely result in the majority gaining permanent control by making it impossible for those outside the majority alliance to ever gain power. 

Tyranny of the majority, which boils down to tyranny of those in seats of power representing the "majoity", will simply replace the tyranny of Mubarak. 

Status quo cont., cont.

In today's partisan-charged debate regarding politics it's important whose group is in charge -- this determines how any given partisan thinks about the relationship between the State and the private sector. There are very few conversations going on which deal objectively with the State/private sector relationship.

Rustow, from his book, Freedom and Domination, believed that modern demo-cracy is inadequate, even with the safeguards of formal rules and laws, a few rights to protect individuals from arbitrary State power and the fact that power is alternated between groups, that it's inferior to the ideals of freedom, equality before the law and fraternity -- which are democratic ideals, but not necessarily protected in a demo-cracy, which is a Greek compound:

"kratos" (-cracy), "power, despotism," or of arche (-archy), "rule"--- thus monarchy, autocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, ochlocracy. Now democracy, with an innocent matter-of-factness, places itself in the same series. Should we take it at its word and insinuate that it is a -cracy, a despotim like all the others and that it distinguishes itself from them only because it is the "people," the demos, who are in the despot's place?

When the Democrat Party is in power, they claim the virtues of democracy, but when the Republican Party is in power there's more concern with democratic ideals, and vice versa -- both parties love government power as long as the power has been given to them by the majority -- otherwise, when out of power, each party is concerned about individual rights, freedom and limits on government power. But it's all a show, both parties are simply concerned with power, and the moderates want bipartsan power because they think this prevents abuse of power and creates resolution of extremes. What we've got is a system firmly entrenched slowly moving toward statist domination. Rustow's studies of demo-cracy showed an "insufficient capacity for defense against the ideological and political attacks of totalitarian collectivism."

Another "insufficient capacity" is our myopia and lack our historical perspective -- many political commentators' historical perspective ends at the Clinton administration, so it's no wonder they don't see the progression of statism brought on by demo-cracy untethered from the contraints of the Constitution -- their perspective is simply which group of technocrats are more competent to run government. Most of the people commenting on the relationship beween the State and the private sector have no idea what a free market looks like.

To Rustow, "totalitarianism" wasn't a rightwing scare word, it was a reality he witnessed firsthand before writing Freedom and Domination. Although "totalitarianism" is now too heavy a word to use effectively, it's the ideas which are important, the human nature and political reality involved. Those in power rarely, if ever, relinquish power voluntarily, so the moderates' plan to establish bipartisan power-sharing to avoid extremes is a futile plan -- what we'll get is periods of slow growth in government power followed by huge power-grabs in times of crisis and one party rule. Perhaps we're not scared of totalitarianism, and perhaps ancient Athens and Rome are old stories, but our grandchildren may face a much different reality if we shirk our duty to resist domination in all its forms, even those with a smiley face and, like, really cool rulers.

Precious sophistry

http://nymag.com/news/politics/63662/

Thanks to a link in a Rick Lowry blog post at National Review, I was led to this article. I'm surprised there hasn't been much reaction to this, or perhaps there has been and I missed the reaction, too. I don't do this for a living so I have to spend my time wisely and rely on some of the main bloggers to pick up on these things, then comment if inspired.

This article inspired me. It's a perfect example of the left's undeserved, self-proclaimed status as the Smart Ones in the political class. Basically, the author believes the Founders didn't want the public to voice their opinions, but rather depend on the decisions of a handful of elite leaders to make decisions which we should all faithfully and trustingly abide by. The "rabble" lacks the intelligence to know what is best for them. I don't know if Kurt Andersen is purposefully overloading his readers with stupid so that the task of responding to what he wrote will be too cumbersome, but I do know that if I went point by pont I'd still be typing tomorrow at this time.

The main point about democracy is correct, but his analysis of the problem is full of holes, non sequitors and contradictions. We weren't set up as a democracy, but, rather, a respresentative republic, in order to avoid tyranny of the majority, yet Andersen criticizes the filibuster which protects the minority from being bullied by the majority, and still fails to call our govenment a republic -- instead he says it's a democracy that is not too democratic -- a weasel-way to avoid calling our government a republic.

"Representative" has a meaning -- to representent -- in this case to representent the people -- the majority and the minority, yet Andersen seems to think that representative means an elite group of leaders making decisions for the people based on what the elite group thinks is best.

Andersen writes:

...in 1787 several dozen coolheaded members of the American Establishment had to meet and debate and horse-trade for four months to do the real work of creating an apparatus to make self-government practicable—that is, to write the Constitution. And what those thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen did was invent a democracy sufficiently undemocratic to function and endure. They wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves, as James Madison wrote, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” They wanted to make sure the mass of ordinary citizens, too easily “stimulated by some irregular passion … or misled by the artful misrepresentations” and thus prone to hysteria—like, say, the rabble who’d run amok in Boston Harbor—be kept in check. That’s why they created a Senate and a Supreme Court and didn’t allow voters to elect senators or presidents directly. By the people and for the people, definitely; of the people, not so much.

This is an interesting explanation of the Founders intent -- of the people, not so much. What does this mean? That America should be governed by an elite who are not really "of the people". But what about the Constitution they wrote which limited the power of the State? Weren't these limitations set in place to prevent "hysteria" and tyranny of the majority, but also, and more importantly, to prevent tyranny of a handful of elite in government positions who could also be "stimulated by some irregular passion"? 

This excerpt is simply funny -- notice how he starts to frame the tea part movement:

"The tea-party movement takes its name from the mob of angry people in Boston who, in 1773, committed a zany criminal stunt as a protest against taxes and the distant, out-of-touch government that imposed them."

Andersen doesn't understand protest against tyranny, obviously. This "zany criminal stunt" was the impetus for the revolution against monarchical tyranny -- it's all in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps the elite group should have civilly requested that the royalty in England be nicer to the colonists. Andersen's obvious use of legitimate protest as a way to smear the tea partiers is disingenuous.

Anderson goes on to denigrate what he calls the extreme of the left and right, then yearns for the time when the MSM could control the message. Andersen believes cable news is deseminating dangerous information which is whipping the public into a frenzy and threatening the elite group in government who are giving in to publc pressure.

Let's go back to the Constitution. If we maintain a limited government, all these problems disappear -- the public cannot tyrannize, nor can the State tyrannize. What we are suffering from are the consequences of government which is excercising powers outside its Constitutional limitations. Yes, the senate is where passions are cooled and the Supreme Court is to protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution. Andersen appears to be more concerned with the tea party influence, which is aimed at limiting government and stopping the over-reach,  than he is concerned with years of public pressure from the radical left to nationalize medicine and control private industry through questionable environmental regulations.

This article is scary when you realize that more and more people on the left are thinking this way and truly believe we should be ruled by an elite group of politicans. Of course, Andersen doesn't come out and say "ruled", but it doesn't take much effort to read between the lines and understand his position -- limit the power of cable news, limit the power of public opinion, strengthen the power of the Democrat controlled senate by doing something about the filibuster (which is strange when he argues against tyranny of the majority), and allow the elite, "thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen" and gentlewomen, I'm sure he would add, "run the government".

Who would control this elite group? If he accepts they are bound by Constitutional limits on their power, then I'm not sure what he's ranting about. Perhaps he is arguing for limited government and is in line with the tea party afterall. If he means that rampant democracy will create a tyranny of the majority, then I agree. But, like I said, reading between the lines, I think he has something else in mind.

Here we have a hint.

"The populist impulse isn’t always or altogether bad. Two decades after the 1890s People’s Party proposed a progressive income tax and the direct election of senators, the Constitution was amended accordingly."

Progressve populism is okay, it's just the crazy right populism which is dangerous and needs to be contained by the government's elite and gentle group of politicians.

While the tea-party movement is not populist in a coherent economic sense, it has all of populism’s worst historical features—not just the conspiracist paranoia about malign elites but also the desperately nostalgic sense of dispossession, the anti-immigrant anger, the anti-intellectualism. Notwithstanding the racist signs at tea-party rallies, let’s stipulate that most tea-partiers aren’t racist. Yet according to a new poll by Research 2000 commissioned by Daily Kos, 36 percent of Republicans think President Obama wasn’t born here and another 22 percent aren’t sure. If Obama were white and his father had been, say, Norwegian, there wouldn’t be much of a “birther” movement. As an unabashedly elitist African-American, Obama has an unprecedentedly synergistic super-badness in the right-wing populist demonology.

Yes, let's stipulate that most tea-partiers are not racist, but then continue to bash them as if they are.

Okay, that's enough --I think we get the point.

Why Obama doesn't matter

Another distraction in the current national converstation is that public dissatisfaction is caused by Obama either doing too much or not enough. Obama is a bit actor in a long play. Yes, people are angry at Obama for one or the other reason, but that's not the basic cause of the dissatisfaction. We're in a battle between those who think the State is the answer to our future and those who think the State has too much power and needs to be brought under control. In a relatively short time Obama will be just another ex-president and someone else will be in the Oval Office, but the State will be around for a long, long time, in one form or another -- and the battle between State power and private sector power will continue even under a Republican president.

There's a good possibiliity that progressive over-reach will be moderated starting in 2010, but this is not good enough. The Democrats saw an opportunity during a financial crisis to make a giant progressive leap, but their ambition to socialize America has been met with resistance. I'm not quite convinced this means that government will learn its lessson, back off and allow the private sector to return to free market principles. The Old Guard in the Republican Party is basically statist and philosophically tied to a centrist route of mixed economy, world leadership/dominance from a militaristic position and moral  nannyism. The New Center-Right is not much different than the second term of Clinton, or Obama's campaign rhetoric as it related to bipartisanship and a new way of governing. Many moderates dissatisfied with Palin as McCain's pick undoubtedly voted for Obama.

The McCain-like political elite in the Republican Party represents centrist statism and will be just as resistant to a tea party-like movement to limit government power as the Democrats. If the Old Gaurd regains power, they will compromise with progressives to reform healthcare and implement some form of cap and trade -- it will be done in a way that protects large corporations and blocks competiton from small and medium size companies. Healthcare reform and energy policy will be done in less extreme measures which will be more window dressing than anything else -- they will advance State control over the economy.

Many of the Republicans who are now associating themselves with the Tea Party movement will likely rationalize why we must compromise and slowly move toward a moderate management of the economy and how this is better than the radical management of the progressives. The Republians will promise to manage the economy so it reflects American values, but we must not forget the dangerous world and our place in it -- the State still needs to take the lead, they will say, so that we aren't threatened by terrorists, progressives and moral degenerates. They will offer the statism of good old fashioned American values rather than the statism of socialist/commie/degenerate values.

They will patiently explain to the ignorant public why we can't have a willy-nilly free market with no supervision, or allow people to become morally corrupted, or allow other countries to threaten democracy and traditional American values. They will explain how a strong American State with firm and fair management is necessary to avoid socialistic extremes. They will play to the right and deal with the left, just as Democrats, under normal, non-crisis conditions, play to the left and deal with the right.

In other words, the current progressive push for huge socialistic advances is an anamoly which will soon be moderated. If the public punishes the Democrats, we will be back to centrism making slower advances to socialiistic, statist policies. If the American people are truly learning the game of State power for the sake of State power, they will resist Republican statism too.

Hobbesian fall

 According to most historians, man once was separated into farmers (to use the modern term) and hunters, with the more daring and aggressive hunters raiding the farmers for awhile, stealing their women and food, then pretty much killing off the clan -- then the hunters realized that if they didn't kill the farmers, they could control them and get them to produce -- this formed communities based on the domination of the hunters over the farmers, with the farmers eventually welcoming the protection -- then after a period of socialization the two groups began to mix, until they evolved into States with full blown governments. This is a simplification, but it gives an outline.

 

The three main theories of the origination of the State came from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Hobbes has been called the theoretical Father of Totalitarianism by Arendt and Rustow -- I don't understand his continued influence in light of the damage caused by his ideas. Hobbes would be more representative of Russia, Iran or China than America -- at least for most of America's history. The last 70 to 80 years have produced tendencies which seem to lean toward Hobbes' ideas of a powerful centralized government, but the promise of protection which comes from Hobbesian theory, the protection we need from each other in the "war of all against all" in a state of nature, breaks down when the Hobbesian State forces its subjects to go to war with other States. Rousseau sought to remedy this with totalitarian democracy -- the dictatorship of the majority. The "General Will" is more enlightened than the individual will, so even if the individual disagrees with the General Will regarding taxes, going to war or implementing socialized medicine, the individual is simply wrong if she goes against the enlightened reason of the General Will.

 

Rousseau is closer to the democratic socialism we see in Europe and in the "progressive" movement in America. The U.S. was a mixture of Locke and Rousseau, but now on the verge of a Hobbesian nightmare. If the State becomes more powerful, we could be at risk to fall under the control of a centralized power which is a new form of an ogliarchy. Locke believed, basically, that man has natural rights and the State should protect these rights. This is the original idea inspiring most of the Founders, although Hamilton leaned more toward the strong, Hobbesian, centralized State. The question for us today is which direction  do we choose? The idea of an enlightened group of rulers dies hard. Hardly anyone in America wants a totalitarian form of government, yet many still believe that there are special people with special knowledge who can guide the country toward the Good Society, the Just Society, the Happy and Safe Society. But it is never just guidance. These groups of enlightened rulers always enforce their ideas, because the enlightened rulers define the Good Society, the Just Society, and so forth, and they can't take a chance on it not being implemented through persuasion. Inevitably, this definition which is forced on everyone is not accepted by everyone -- sometimes it's not even accepted by the majority.

 

This idea of a political elite would be humorous if it wasn't so dangerous. In theory it sounds reasonable -- the best and brightest -- but in practice it's a theater of the absurd. Well-educated men and women have their specialized knowledge, but to extrapolate from this specialized knowledge that a country the size of America can be guided by this well-educated group is beyond naive -- it's delusional. Its neither practical nor desirable. If Hobbes is right, then what makes the rulers exempt from self-seeking? If Rousseau is right, then individualism and self-will are dead. There is no General Will, only individual wills, so Rousseau leads to a democratic totalitarianism.

 

Locke had it more right than the others -- the nature of man requires the rights of life, liberty and property in order for the fullness of humanity to materialize and be acted upon -- this can be seen wherever freedom has risen in its varying degrees -- from Athens to America. Enlightened rulers dont have a good track record -- Rome turned into a bureacratic nightmare. Lenin became Lenin, Mao became Mao. America is no different. We're blinded to the slow deterioration of our Hobbes/Rousseau political mix as Locke is becoming a footnote -- like the boiling frog metaphor, we don't realize what's happening -- it just feels warm and protective. A few more crises and we've given our liberty over completely to an ogliarchy and squandered our heritage. Then, like Rome, we fall.