I finished reading "Democracy in America," written in 1835 by Alexis De Tocqueville. This insightful work explores social, political and economic life in the United States and larger issues of the true significance of democracy. Not only is this work descriptive, it is predictive. Tocqueville was almost prophetic in his description of the hazards that democratic nations face, most of which are coming to fruition in the United States and in Western Europe in our very generation. In particular, he warned against the danger of tyranny slowly staking hold in democracies. He emphasized that this phenomena is without parallel in the annals of human a history: a softer, yet far more pervasive despotism that slowly comes to permeate every facet of economic, social and political life. We should pay careful heed of his warnings, because what makes this form of despotism unique is that those who are sowing its seeds are not open advocates of tyranny. They are not "jack booted fascists" and "red robed communist," in fact, most are well meaning, self described supporters of democracy and freedom. But, as history shows, actions carry consequences far beyond the intentions of their authors.
Tocqueville himself apologized for lacking a proper definition, because he believed that "the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories."
The despots of the past "possessed immense and unchecked powers," but "the range of their interests were limited." "Their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few (who opposed their power)," but "neglected the rest." But, "none ever attempted to subject all his subjects indiscriminately to strict uniformity of regulation, and personally to tutor and direct every member of the community" to the same extent as modern "progressive states." Even if he had conceived it "the imperfection of the administrative system....would speedily have checked the execution of such a design."
He hesitated to use the term "tyranny," because in his own words "The nature of despotic power in the democratic age is not to be fierce or cruel, but minute and meddling." Tocqueville describes the modern, interventionist state in the following verse:
"It covers the surface of society with a network 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, by they 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."
Clearly, Tocqueville is describing an energetic, interventionist state that seeks to regulate and control every facet of social and economic life, a bureaucracy that "is directly opposed to the genius of commerce and the pursuit of industry." This is especially true in a city like Chicago, where there is not a single productive endeavor that is not heavily taxed and regulated by the state. Before I go on I must strike down the predictable straw-man response of "oh yeah, without regulations doctors and electricians would harm the public." My critique is not directed against the handful of vital regulations that protect the lives and limbs of the public against genuine hazards. Rather I am referring to the bureaucrats in Louisiana who heavily fined an old lady for engaging in floral arrangements without a license and bureaucrats in Chicago who fined a West African immigrant for braiding hair without possessing a costly and time consuming license. Since no one ever died from a bad hair weave or ill-arranged bouquet, we can be certain that the driving spirit that animates these regulations is not "protecting vital public interests." Rather it is a world view that is based on the belief that individuals do not have inherent rights to pursue economic enterprises; they must seek the state's permission for all economic activity. And outside of what the state permits, consumers and communities alike do not have the right to determine what is in their best interest and accept the consequences of their choices.
One of many measures of the growth of the state is the Code of Federal Regulation which surged from 54,834 pages in 1970 to 145,816 in 2007, a 376% increase! And even under the "deregulatory administration" of GW Bush, the number of employees in regulatory agencies surged from 172,000 to 244,000 a 41% and spending increased from $27 billion to $44.9 billion, a 44% increase! Economists estimate the total cost of regulatory compliance at over $1.1 trillion dollars! The amount of time and money required to navigate through the winding bureaucratic labyrinths presents a burden that all but the largest corporate entities are able to navigate. And for those who believe that we are living in a state of "laissez faire capitalism," I refer you the literally hundreds of federal agencies managing every imaginable activity.
Tocqueville prophetically described the omnipresent nanny state that would come to dominate American life. Such a state would "undertake to guide and instruct" each citizen and "to secure their happiness quite independently of their own consent." In the follow verse he elaborates on the cultural and spiritual significance of such a state:
"That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its objects 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, provide 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 principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus is every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumcises the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principles of quality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and often times to look on the mas benefits."
Such a state encourages the its citizens to aggressively invent and pursue whole new entitlements, while simultaneously becoming increasingly passive in the face of state dictates, or as Tocqueville puts it "the very men, who from time to time upset a throne and trample on a race of kinds, bend more and more obsequiously to the slightest dictate of a clerk."
He correctly notes that in the course of caring for individuals and families, such a state will erode their independence, individuality and their very vitality. At first the tutelage of the nanny state was confined to welfare families that depended on the state for everything from food, shelter, medicine and guidance on child rearing. But, over time the spirit of entitlement has penetrated into the core of America's middle class, as seen in Obama's drive for national health care. The end result is that over 50% of a productive individual's labor is usurped through local, state and federal taxes, a burden that has surpassed that of the feudal ages. In addition these expenditures have led to national debt that will burden generations of Americans to come. And on a spiritual level, those who depend on the state are far, far more likely to tolerate its vexations.
In his writings, Tocqueville frequently marvelled at the vitality of civil society of the Americans. From charities, to churches, to not-for-profits, no other people on earth have so freely and energetically produced benevolent social organizations. And no other people have so freely volunteered their time, money and energy to freely pursue the betterment of their fellow men. Tocqueville warned that the interventionist state would diminish this capacity:
"The task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend every day. The more it stands in the place of (free) associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance: these are causes and effects which unceasingly engender each other..."
Presumably he believe that a pervasive welfare state would diminish the necessity and ability of individuals to freely form energetic communities and civic organizations to address their social and economic needs.
Vigorous free associations are also cited as a fundamental check on the encroachment of the state. Not surprisingly governments look with ill favor upon these organizations, but surprisingly many citizens of democratic nations also do. As Tocqueville puts it "amongst democratic nations, the people themselves often entertain a secrete feeling of fear and jealous against these very associates..and the free use which each association makes of its natural powers is almost regarded as a dangerous privilege." The best example of this is the fear and disdain that many have expressed towards the Tea Parties, which represent the dissent and vigilance that are vital in democracies.
So, the question remains - what are the forces the drive the citizens of modern democracies to accept this soft tyranny? Tocqueville believed the a "dread of(economic and social) disturbance and the love of well being insensibly lead democratic nations to increase the functions of central government, as the only power which appears to be intrinsically sufficiently strong, enlightened and secure, to protect them from anarchy." The Obama administration skillfully played on this fear to quickly push through a trillion dollar stimulus plan and multi billion dollar bailouts with very little debate and oversight. Needless to say these actions resulted in a massive increase in the power of the state, at the expense of productive individuals and organizations.
In a someone cryptic remark, Tocqueville shows amazing insight about times of rapid economic, political and social change, in which most "imagine that mankind is about to fall into perpetual anarchy: if they looked to the final consequences of this revolution, their fears would perhaps assume a different shape." Think about this - throughout our brief recession experts and laymen alike declared that our primary danger was economic collapse, when in reality, as painful as they are, economic downturns are transient and the real long term danger is the massive debt and long term stagnation that Obama's expanded state will ensure.
Tocqueville repeatedly warned that "continuous warfare augments the democratic tendency which leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state, and to circumscribe the rights of private persons, in much more rapid and constant among those democratic nations which are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars, than among all others." In other words, whether by design or by circumstance, the end result of the constant warfare is that the Bush and Obama administrations have engaged in an expansion of the power of the state and a contraction of civil liberties. And more troubling in the name of security large segments of the populace has granted the government a carte blanche to circumvent constitutional rule.
Tocqueville also stressed that the egalitarian impulses found in democracies paradoxically allow rulers to expand their power at the expense of democracy. Whereas the pursuit of equality under the law and equal opportunity are the life blood of liberty and democracy, the pursuit of equal economic and social outcomes via state intervention is antithetical to liberty.
"The foremost, or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus, the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle."
Envy and desire for economic equality drive individuals to seek the tyranny of socialism, which is based on arbitrarily usurping the wealth and liberty of enemy classes. In modern democracies this envious impulse exists in a muted forms and expressed within the confines of the rule of law. Rather than strip productive citizens of all their wealth, 50% of their income is usurped and redistributed. In the name of achieving equal social and economic outcomes, citizens accept an expansion of the power of the state at the expense of their own liberty, or as Tocqueville eloquently put it:
"...men accustom themselves to sacrifice private interests without scruple, and to trample on the rights of individuals in order more speedily to accomplish any public purpose." and "...the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same portion of their ignorance."
The envious impulse of socialism is usually manifested in hostility towards successful groups. The state can arbitrarily seize the wealth and civil liberties of successful groups and transfer it to others. In relatively homogeneous societies this simply occurs across class lines, but in more diverse societies this almost always occurs across ethnic lines. The Vietnamese communists usurped the property of the entrepreneurial Chinese minority, the Ugandan socialists seized the property of Indians and Pakistani merchants and so on.
In democracies the drive to achieve equal social and economic outcomes among disparate groups is not achieved through outright tyranny, but through affirmative action and the threat of discrimination lawsuits, both of which drive the admission and hiring practices of universities, private firms and of course government agencies. Even if the outcome of such policies were positive, they are coercive and they infringe on the autonomy of individuals and organizations alike. But, perhaps the greatest harm is rendered upon the recipients of government redistributive efforts who in Tocqueville's own words are "falling, more and more, into the lowest stages of weakness and dependence." As I read this line, I could not help but think about the economic, social and spiritual ruin that has occurred in many previously vibrant African-American communities via the nearly complete dependence that entitlement programs have fostered in them.
Tocqueville also foresaw that democratic states would inevitably seek to control greater segments of the economy, as Obama has done in the automotive, financial, housing and health care sectors. Not only did he believe that this would be economically deleterious, but also "the morals and thew intelligence of a democratic people would be as much endangered as its business and manufacturing, if the government ever wholly usurped the place of private companies."
And contrary to most "progressives" he did not view powerful commercial and corporate interests as a threat to democracy, but as potential backwards against the encroachment of the state:
"An association for political, commercial, or manufacturing purposes, or even for those of sciences and literature, is a powerful and enlightened member of the community, which cannot be disposed of at pleasure, or oppressed without remonstrance; and which, by fending its own rights against the encroachments of the government, saves the common liberties of the country."
Whenever I express concern about the threat that the interventionist state poses to liberty and democracy, my "progressive" associates usually respond with the idea that policies and programs that "represent the will of the people" are inherently democratic. And coercive measures, such as the seizure of over half of a productive citizens wealth are not undemocratic, as long as they are enacted by freely elected representatives. Tocqueville was adamant in his belief that free elections did not equal a free society.
"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 person at the present day are quite contended with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people...They devise a sole, tutelary and all powerful from of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principles of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflecting that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be in leading strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of person, but the people at large that holds the end of his chains."
Tocqueville pointed out the irony of a state that implicitly holds that people are incapable of managing "those minor (personal) affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted," yet are invested with the immense choice of selecting their leaders.
A system that increasingly erodes individual choice and freedom, while simultaneously elevating elections to an almost sacred level, contributes to the erosion of the individual, social and cultural energy of a people:
"It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their freed choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."
Tocqueville believe that excessive state intervention in social and economic life even eroded the ability of individuals and nations to wisely select their leaders:
"It is, indeed , difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be government; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrage of a subservient people."
Clearly, the election of Barack Obama and other demagogues comes to mind. A vigorous and intelligent public would understand that wealth and welfare cannot be created by a state that usurps half of its citizenry's wealth, while simultaneously amassing a mind boggling debt. But individuals and communities who have been rendered dependent and lethargic fall prey to such empty rhetoric.
I leave you with these Tocquevillian sentiments: to a tremendous degree, a nation's economic, political and social life reflect the mores (values, visions, customs & culture) of its people. America's unparalleled social and economic prosperity would be impossible without its cultural capital - without the industriousness, energy and insight of its people. And the ability of individuals and institutions alike to lead free and vibrant existences is a product of the culture and spirit of a people. So perhaps the greatest danger of the growth of the nanny state is the development of an enfeebled, dependent population addicted to entitlement, seeking their salvation through a strong state. Because, as Toqueville correctly pointed out "...no form or combination of social polity has yet been devised to make an energetic people out of a community of pusillanimous and enfeebled citizens" and the "extreme centralization of government ultimately enervates society" and eventually "weakens the government itself." And history shows that when individuals and nations become weary of their representatives and doubtful of their capacity of self governance, they inevitably turn towards figures of strong and despotic authority.
http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg2116.cfm#_ftn14
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/research/rs264tot.pdf
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/221804.html
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment