Ray Bradbury said, ""

Political moderation

This is my post for the Balance of Power on Wednesday. I admit the last portion needs much work, and will eventually expand it to see for myself if it is in accord with Rand's "The Anatomy of Compromise."

The only tool available to the political process is the application of force toward ends desired by the governing body. There is no political action that does not involve such an application of force. These ends universally lay in peace and prosperity; no political movement has ever promised its followers abject poverty and misery. It is on the application of force that each party disagrees.

All political parties descend from the acceptance of one of two contrary (as opposed to contradictory) propositions: either men possess harmonious rightly-understood self-interests in the action of which all benefit, or there exists a fundamental discord between the rightly-understood self-interests of men in the action of which all benefits must come at the expense of harm to others. Either peaceful social cooperation is possible and necessary for life, or men must be forced like repulsing magnetic poles to interact.

Consider the implications of both propositions. I will list a few, and we'll see how they relate to our political scene.

1. A party founded on the first proposition will seek to limit the function of government to the suppression of those pernicious self-interests which can only be expressed through force. The law is seen as having one function: to protect the innocent man from the criminal. Government is seen to exist to apply force toward those who would violently dissolve social relations. Government is seen as a "night watchman."

A party founded on the second proposition will seek to extend the function of government into the realm of social relations and the suppression of those rightly-understood self-interest upon which men act peacefully. The law is seen as having two functions: to protect the innocent man from the criminal, and to protect the innocent man from himself. Government is seen as a nanny.

To some degree both major parties in America have adopted a little of both propositions. As Bastiat said, those who would mold mankind in their own image at some point, different to each, realize the implications of their beliefs, and then spend the rest of their lives trying to backtrack; hence the infinitely varied plans of the utopians. Yet it should be easy to see which proposition a party is most heavily influenced by. There are some advocates of each party who will point out policies of the opposing party as examples of the latter's expanded powers over peaceful action, and some who will publicly acknowledge which proposition they uphold. Look to the aggregate, however. In the course of the 20th century, which American political party has upheld the most policies influenced by the second proposition? It is easy to see that the Democratic party has been the driving force behind the expansion of government action into social relations.

2. A party founded on the first proposition will hold that the individuals in government, possessing rightly-understood self-interests identical to the rest of the population, can no more justly suppress those interests than any member of the population. These individuals in government are limited to the protection of the rightly-understood self-interests of the population, this protection being synonymous with rights. The function of government is seen to be the protection of the equal rights of the population from individuals both within and without government. A party so founded will hold that government must be limited in its actions, and that the individuals in government be held accountable to the rest of the population. A government so founded will be a constitutional republic, which possesses democratic processes so that the will of the majority, limited by the equal rights of each individual, is expressed.

A party founded on the second proposition must hold that the individuals in government be of a qualitatively different caliber than the rest of men. They cannot be held accountable to the public, whose natural inclination is the destruction of social relations, and so must exist as a separate and alien class of men. They must possess self-interests different than the majority of mankind, and cannot properly be said to be given permission in their actions. A government so founded cannot be held accountable to the public, cannot be limited in its functions by the public's will, and inherently cannot possess democratic processes.

In this implication, more than in the previous one, it is seen more easily which American political party has sought gradual delegations of power from elected assemblies into unelected positions. To broaden my focus, I will point out that the only conclusion possible from the second proposition is the complete consolidation of political power into a single unelected governing body.

3. A party founded on the first proposition will, holding that there exists by the nature of man equal rights common to all humans, see no issue in international trade. International law, as with domestic law, will be seen to have as its only function the protection of peaceful social relations against violence. The foreign policy of such a government will focus upon dictatorial nations, nations which oppress citizens, and will have no say in peaceful international relations.

A party founded on the second proposition will hold that there exists, even more than within a nation, an inherent discord between the self-interests of the inhabitants of each nation. International law will, as with domestic law, concern itself not only with violent actions but with peaceful social interaction. International trade will become an issue, and the government will concern itself with the level of imports and exports and other trade relations.

In this implication, there is a much finer distinction between the major American political parties. Whereas both accept the implication that international trade relations falls within the domain of international law, it is possible to determine to what degree each acts toward the regulation of international trade. I will leave it to my readers to decide which party embodies in a greater degree the regulation of trade.

4. A party founded on the first proposition will hold that education be placed within the solid jurisdiction of the people closest to the children, people who have the least latitude for the expression of pernicious interests. The goal of education is seen as the expansion of knowledge, not an institution of social change to remodel humans. There is no need seen to suppress the rightly-understood self-interests of students through education. A party so founded will seek to decentralize as much as possible a public education system so the decisions are made as close to the parents as possible.

A party founded on the second proposition will hold that education must train youth to suppress their rightly-understood self-interests and adopt different self-interest identical to that of government officials. Education will be placed within the hands of a centralized governmental body, as it cannot be left to the decisions of parents whose pernicious self-interests are destructive of social relations. The goal of education is seen as the protection of society by remolding students to the correct morality. Public education becomes an institution for social change.

On this implication, it is also clear to see which major American political party has influenced more heavily the public education system in the 20th century.

From this brief list, it should be apparent that the driving force of the Democratic party has been the expansion of governmental power over the sphere of voluntary social relations, and that to a large extent this drive is also behind the Republican party. To the extent that both have been directed by the second proposition, they have expanded the powers of government to interfere with peaceful social cooperation. A compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans will most likely occur in a dispute over the degree to which government may encroach on social relations, not over whether such a power is just. I hold that most political debate now is a matter of degree, and not a matter of two opposing principles. In many political issues, it is the second proposition that is at the heart of both sides. What then, does political moderation mean? In practice, it now means a compromise between two policies both of which seek the same immediate end: the expansion of government power into peaceful social relations. It is a debate over the form such an encroachment should take, not over the encroachment itself.

Observe the tenor of political debate. Much of it concerns quantitative issues: how much welfare is justified, how much of a course must be taught in school, how large a tax ought to be imposed on cigarettes, how many import tariffs are proper, how old should one be to recieve welfare benefits, how much control over telecommunications should the government possess, how many months after conception does abortion become illegal. Few issues are now framed qualitatively. Such a qualitative debate can only occur when there is a difference of opinion regarding principle. Only then, is there a meeting of two minds; otherwise, the debate is more of a stuttering monologue. A political debate which devolves upon a matter of degree, only offers an opportunity to slow down the direction of a political movement. It is a compromise of the same sort an executioner gives when he offers the convict a decision between death by hanging or by guillotine. A political debate which devolves upon a matter of principle, however, offers the opportunity to achieve a real difference of belief. The outcome of such a debate is qualitatively different than the outcome of a debate over degree. It also, incidentally, makes more visible the political differences between the two parties. 

Rather than a debate between socialism and Keynesian interventionism, in which a compromise would result in France, there is need for a debate between both of those and Jeffersonian classical liberalism.

In most political discussions, the first question one asks is of quantity. "How large should the minimum wage be?" or "how many people should be eligible for this medical aid?" I ask that those seeking actual political moderation, a meeting of opposing minds and principles,ask first a qualitative question. Ask not how much of a policy should be implemented, but whether it should be implemented at all. Only then can one begin to delve into quantitive issues. And, it makes debaters far more honest about the origins of their politics.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at July 25, 2005 14:11 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
politics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Comments:

#1  25 July 2005 - 19:26

 

I tried the Socratic method last time, Tom, but that's admittedly clumsy on the net.

This time, I'll just say you're wrong, so there. As I'm a conservative, you'd find us in agreement about many things, but in the theoretical, I'd rather argue the other side.

Philosophy did not start with Ayn Rand. Although she has some interesting notions, she (and thereby you) do not address or even acknowledge the existence of "society" in any meaningful way.

There is more of society, the demos, the Great Unwashed, than of Howard Rourke. Their needs and sheer numbers are of equal concern as the Huns. Both will come streaming over the walls of Howard's Epicurean Garden with equal facility.

The roles of "The City and Man" are fundamental to classical philosophy. Your pre-philosophic zero-based budgeting of the City's structure is admirable, but even by Plato's time was untenable.

I've been enjoying Leo Strauss, who is a credible scholar if not philosopher and he has a book by the above title, properly grounded in Plato and his crew. I think you'd like him, T, as he, like Rand, arrives at the pursuit of excellence as man's highest telos, although with far more grounding. He is as opposed to the leveling us all into a great mediocrity, or as the philosophical father of the European Union, Alexandre Kojeve, called it, the Universal Homogenous State.

You'd dig Strauss, I guarantee it. No UHSer, you. :-)

As to your illustrations of a dichotomy of political philosophies, I don't find them accurate or even necessarily fair. As to whether the right (kings) or the left (the "people") is more authoritarian, it swings with the times. We can choose between the tyranny of the few or of the many.

Those of us who lean right (because kings are occasionally wise; the mob is never wise) do indeed venerate the US Constitution. If you think about it, "the people" aren't sovereign, the Constitution is, and that's the way we like it. It's no coincidence that there's still no EU constitution, and even the individual states of Enlightenment Europe have no constitution (UK) or change theirs with the weather (everywhere else). I do think our US constitution vs. the tyranny of the majority is your core concern, and on this would would agree deeply.

As to education, the "inculcation" (from the Latin, meaning to put your foot on someone's throat) of the young, that's been central since Plato & Aristotle and through Rousseau. I'd have to allow that the left, which owns the West's educational establishment LS&B, are less concerned with creating solid citizens than noble savages.


Best,---TVD

Anonymous

#2  31 July 2005 - 17:43

 

When it comes to general compromise, there are two types, issue-specific and multi-issue. Issue-specific means the giving and taking on a specific issue. To take your medical-aid example, one side would say all the people should get government-sponsored medical aid, while the other'd say nobody should get any of this type of government aid. Eventually they might strike a balance somewhere in the middle that both sides can aggree on for the moment. Multi-issue would mean that one side gets an advantage on one issue, but gives up a lot on another. An example would be a high number of people getting gov. medical aid but very low import tarriffs. Still though, these compromises best serve to delay argument.

The problem with moderation between the two spheres of political thought is that it can only go one way. The "watchmen" sphere stands for no tarriffs, but if it wants to do issue-specific compromise then it must allow some tarriffs, in this essence the "nannyies" still have a victory, however small. Over the long run, the watchmen can only loose ground in the two types of compromises I described. Therefore other means would have to be found by the watchmen.

All the best
Scriptor

Anonymous

Comments: