Wednesday, September 22, 2010

[5/2/10] What Sort of Despotism...

Some decry the danger of the Tea Party protestors' comparisons to Fascism of the so-called progressive social democracy sought by the Democrats and Obama.  They and others say that the Tea Party protestors are wrong in their reading of history, or at the very least, the protestor's concerns are overblown.

Those people say we are in no danger of despotism because we democratically elect our leaders, and that freedom can never be in danger from such a government.  Obama himself said just these things in a speech yesterday at the University of Michigan 2010 commencement:

But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad.  One of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, "Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare" -- (laughter) -- which is essentially saying "Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care Plan."  (Laughter.)
When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.  We, the people -- (applause.)  We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders and change our laws, and shape our own destiny.
Of course, such comments are wrong.   Even as soon after the American revolution as 1840, the size and shape of our present government was predicted and described in detail by the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville on the basis of a short visit to America in the latter half of 1831 and early 1832.  The fourth book of the second volume of his Democracy in America addresses this issue precisely.   His chapter titles outline his reasoning:

Chapter II: That The Notions Of Democratic Nations On Government Are Naturally Favorable To The Concentration Of Power
Chapter III: That The Sentiments Of Democratic Nations Accord With Their Opinions In Leading Them To Concentrate Political Power
Chapter VI: What Sort Of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear
His argument is that since a government of the people by its elected representatives is deemed by most of the people to have more knowledge than they individually possess, those individuals willingly yield up to elected authority the power to control even the minutest of details of their daily lives.  Of course, it was to preserve those individual rights that the Constitution was amended with a Bill of Rights two short years after its adoption, but no matter, the desire to be led can overcome the text of those amendments and the desire for freedom.

It is difficult for me to extract brief quotes from de Tocqueville's final chapters.  The sentences and paragraphs are long and, even so, I find them almost all extremely compelling .  Therefore, I beg you, please take the time to read these two paragraphs addressing administrative despotism under popular sovereignty.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest­his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not­he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances­what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
If you do not recognize our present popularly elected Federal, state, and local governments in this 170 year old prediction I will be greatly surprised.  It is not difficult to understand why de Tocqueville calls this despotism, nor to believe that we are at risk from its increase under the present empowerment of the power-hungry left by the muddle-headed middle of our electorate.

Many of the self-composed and hand-lettered signs of the Tea Party protestors are far closer to the truth than Obama's intentionally deceitful speech.  I invite you to exercise your own judgement on that subject.   An excellent photographic survey of those signs taken at the 9/12 protest in DC may be found here.  Many, if not most of them call for a return to a constitutionally limited government.  The compilation and photographs are by Messay Photography, which from its web site, seems to seek to document the diversity of DC.  Their selection roughly matches my own, which allows me to avoid uploading 300 photographs to flickr.com.  I see no sign of the sort quoted by Obama.  If you look, you will find a toothbrush-mustachioed picture of Obama from the Lyndon Larouche organization, but Larouche is a seven-time candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Here again are the final two sentences from de Tocqueville's paragraphs above:
A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
I agree.