The Annica Thomas Show

My hard drive crashed, so there'll be no regular Friday post this week. However, I did appear as a guest on The Annica Thomas Show on Tulsa's local talk radio station 1170 KFAQ to talk about my blog, conservatism, and how it relates to a broader Biblical Christian worldview. You can catch that interview here. Until next week,

Josh

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

We the People—Part 5 (The People and the Proletariat)

Original artwork by Marisa Draeger

This series began by observing the absurdities of North Korea’s official website, which claims:

“The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a genuine workers' state in which all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression. The workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals are the true masters of their destiny and are in a unique position to defend their interests.”

We have come full circle.

In the prior post we explored the traditional conservative/Madisonian response to the question of how best to secure the liberties of “the people” in a civil society. In short, James Madison viewed “the people” as various factions and advocated a republic—a form of government in which citizens elect representatives to speak on their behalf—as the best means of securing both peace and liberty. Madison was persuaded that it was futile to seek to remove the causes of factions and instead suggested a republic could mitigate their destructive effects.

Madison wrote, “there are…two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” It should be noted that wherever communism has been tried its leaders have used Madison’s first “method” to bring about the second. From the Soviet Gulag to the Khmer Rouge killing fields to the Vietnamese reeducation camps, communists have went so far as mass genocide to enforce equality in the supposed best interest of “the people.” This should come as no surprise. Madison warned that the second method was “impracticable;” and any political solution that is impracticable must use a certain amount of coercion to attempt enforcement.

Nevertheless, communists have long insisted they speak on behalf of “the people” in enforcing global equality. Whether or not this is so depends entirely on how we’re defining “the people” and who speaks on their behalf. The Communist Manifesto opens with the line, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” of which two classes are specifically identified: the proletariat, which comprise the working class of farmers and low-skilled factory workers, and the bourgeoisie, which are the wealthy who own most of the means of production. As such, communists have made a modest improvement of the oversimplification of defining “the people” as nothing more than a headcount by reducing humanity into an epic class struggle of the haves and the have nots.

Yet this too is far too simple a definition of “the people.” It may be correct to identify tensions between classes as a cause of human upheaval, but it doesn’t follow that is the sole or even primary cause, or that we are capable of mitigating the cause. Communism is dangerous in the same way all “us” vs “them” ideologies are dangerous: it gives us someone to hate—someone to hold responsible for all that’s wrong with the world—all the while absolving us of our own responsibilities.

Nor does it follow that humanity’s highest aspiration is material equality. In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk put the question this way: “Are the radicals right when they say that the perfection of society requires equality? Would civilization, and would the poor, gain from the establishment of equality? What is the relationship between progress and equality?” The Left often takes it for granted that progress is married to equality. To say that one is for equality sounds admirable; but upon further examination it becomes evident equality can only take us so far. Kirk continues:

“Equality Is the death of progress. Throughout history, progress of every sort, cultural and economic, has been produced by the desire of men for inequality. Without the possibility of inequality, a people continue on the dreary level of bare subsistence, like Irish peasants; granted inequality, the small minority of men of ability turn barbarism into civilization. Equality benefits no one. It frustrates men of talent; and it reduces the poor to a poverty still more abject. In a densely-population civilized state, it means near-starvation for the poor.”

There’s a dark irony in the sort of centralized control communists call for to benefit “the people.” Those who are weak or underprivileged or impoverished are held up as the poster child of why governmental intervention is necessary. If not for the government, how would this poor lot ever get ahead or avoid exploitation from greedy capitalists? And yet, it is often the government intervention itself that leads to the sort of crony capitalism that harms the very groups they are supposedly designed to benefit.

Former CEO of Hewlett Packard and presidential candidate Carly Fiorina put it best when she observed, “Crony capitalism is alive and well and flourishes under big, powerful government. Because the bigger government gets, the more powerful and complicated it becomes, the more true it also is that only the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected can handle it and the small and the powerless get crushed.”

Government intervention doesn’t absolve the problem of “the people” achieving a sense of material wellbeing. As Thomas Sowell observed in his book Basic Economics, “Too often a false contrast is made between the impersonal marketplace and the compassionate policies of various government programs. But both systems face the same scarcity of resources and both systems make choices within the constraints of that scarcity. The difference is that one system involves each individual making choices for himself or herself, while the other system involves a smaller number of people making choices for millions of others. The mechanisms of the market are impersonal but the choices made by individuals are as personal as choices made anywhere else.” It may be that a small number of government officials have altruistic intentions. But how long could we reasonably expect that to last?

Communism works as an abstract theory; the idea of “from each according to their ability to each according to their need” is quite functional and may even be desirable in a family. Most families don’t operate as a democracy, but as a sort of benevolent dictatorship where the parental order has central authority on all the revenues and expenses. The parental order also enforces equality among their dependents. They may even divvy out responsibilities in accordance with their maturity and ability. In return, they care for their dependents’ needs.

I don’t mean that all families function in this way, but that examples of functional families employing this kind of communistic model exists whereas we have no such examples of communist nation-states worth emulating. And that is because what exists in perfection as an abstract theory doesn’t necessarily work in practice in an imperfect world. As we noted in Part 3, conservatism is careful to weigh abstract theories against relevant circumstances. And communism fails that test on at least two levels:

It’s not scalable. What is good for the parts isn’t necessarily good for the whole. What may work in a family setting quickly breaks down when it’s applied to a larger group because the amount of oversight and trust required to keep such a system in check is unattainable. It turns out “the people” don’t exist in some uniform brotherhood of man or as the proletariat whose greatest aspiration is to seize the means of production but as a complex network of factions so that no one person or system can perfectly administer their needs and desires.

It grates against our nature. There’s something alienating about defining your sense of cultural constructs—your sense of being—from some cold, distant, and impersonal central government. Communism is not only impractical, it’s impersonal. “The people” are not interchangeable complex machines, but humans with a profoundly spiritual sense of home no human system could ever hope to replace.

In all fairness, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels never advocated the sort of totalitarian dictatorships communist regimes ultimately produced. Hilariously, they even predicted a withering away of the State under communist rule. Many Marxist today acknowledge the failings and brutality of so many tried communist regimes, but obstinately hold to the idea communism would work just fine if the right people were in charge. But communism’s failure isn’t from lack of trying but from lack of correctly defining “the people” and representing their interests.

Communism is a vast and complex worldview, and I do not mean for this to be an exhaustive critique. Rather, I hope I have demonstrated in this series that the conservative understanding of “the people” and who speaks on their behalf is superior to competing worldviews. And while this might be a good place to end things, there is still one stone I dare not leave unturned for fear it would provide an unbalanced view of what conservatives believe: where does “the individual” fit into all this talk of “the people”? That is the final question we will attempt to answer in the last part of this series.

This article originally appeared in The Millennial Review.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

We the People—Part 4 (Freedom and Factions)

Original artwork by Marisa Draeger

Politicians are fond of talking about “the people.” In Part 1 of this series I ended with two questions that must be answered before we can reasonably expect politicians to address the needs of “the people”: Namely, who, exactly, are “the people” (Part 2)? And who speaks on their behalf (Part 3)? Having addressed those questions in prior posts, we’re now in a better position to examine what system(s) of government best protect the rights and advances the interests of “the people.”

This is precisely the question James Madison—Founding Father, America’s fourth president, Father of the Constitution, and among the esteemed authors of the Federalist Papers—endeavored to answer in his famous Federalist Paper No. 10. Madison’s dilemma was to find a way to prevent the various American factions from using their newfound liberties to tear the newly formed nation apart. Madison wrote: “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

As we discussed in Part 2, “the people” can best be understood not as a simple headcount of everyone who happens to be standing around, but as a collection of various interest groups—in other words, factions. There is nothing particularly righteous or evil about factions; humans have always segregated into various groups that provide the individual a sense of belonging—a way to distinguish between “us” and “them.” However, as Madison cautioned, nothing can be quite so destructive to a free society as factions using that freedom to war against one another.

Madison observes that there are two methods of resolving this dilemma: the first method is to remove the causes of the factions. But this method is less than ideal as factions are so embedded in human nature that it would only be possible to eradicate factions at the expense of liberty. The second method involves attempting to mitigate the effects of factions. And it is here Madison believes we may make progress, though he cautions that the most obvious solution—a pure democracy—offers no relief: “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”

In that same era and across the Atlantic, Edmund Burke, the Father of Conservatism, observed much the same thing in his scathing critique of the populous French Revolution: “It is said, that twenty-four millions ought to prevail over two hundred thousand. True; if the constitution of a kingdom be a problem of arithmetic. This sort of discourse does well enough with the lamp-post for its second: to men who may reason calmly, it is ridiculous. The will of the many, and their interest, must very often differ; and great will be the difference when they make an evil choice.” Generations later Russell Kirk expressed a similar distrust of pure democracy: “Illusions of direct democracy lead to direct tyranny. The franchise should be the privilege of citizens whose stake in the commonwealth, and whose moral character, to some extent lift them above the temptations of power to which corrupt human nature is terribly susceptible.” While these men may have differed in the ideal form of government, they did recognize a republic—a system in which citizens elect representatives to govern them—as superior to the unadulterated freedom a pure democracy affords to the majority.

By electing representatives to govern rather than directly governing themselves, the various factions—that were discussed in Part 2—would be afforded both the expertise and moral character—that were discussed in Part 3—of those each factions believed was fit to represent their views. Madison believed it would be far easier to ensure a small group of representatives had the expertise and character to govern well than to depend upon the collective expertise and character of the entire nation. Such a system may become corrupt over time—as many insist it has today—yet all human systems are prone to corruption and we would do well to maintain perspective over which systems are most likely to become corrupt, and which systems have the potential to purge corruption. From that viewpoint, much can be said in favor of republics.

Another desirable feature of a republic is its ability to expand with a growing population or additional factions or acquired territory without losing its effectiveness. Where in a pure democracy the potential for mob rule or warring factions increases as a nation grows, a republic is shielded from such concerns as the voice of “the people” is filtered through a smaller set of elected representatives. The number of citizens may grow, the number of representatives do not; factions may evolve, the representatives may evolve with them to speak on behalf of the factions but at a slower pace to allow for reflection and deliberation.

During the 18th century, the advents of The Enlightenment and the American Revolution led to a revival in the republican form of government throughout the Western world as many absolute monarchies gave way to liberated societies. Some of those republics—such as the United States—endured while others—such as the French Republic—violently fell into disorder and eventual dictatorship. Conservatives have traditionally held that republics are the best-known system of government for securing the liberty of citizens while providing for national stability. Yet it must be acknowledged that not all republics have been successful, which is why conservatives focus much time and attention on the cultural fabric and moral character of a nation, as those are necessary ingredients for sustained liberties.

An obvious problem with a republic is so many pesky minority factions, with whom we may happen to sharply disagree, often thwart the desires of the majority. A republic is essentially a national compromise. No one faction gets everything they wanted but each faction—in theory—won’t have their rights trampled by any of the others. Does that leave you feeling dissatisfied? You’re not alone. Most political “isms”—liberalism, socialism, populism, authoritarianism—promise their adherents they can have it all so long as the ideology is followed faithfully.

But conservatives have no such ideology. Conservatives observe respect for the past, the nature of man, and prudence/circumstance, all of which suggest we are incapable of governing ourselves without proper constraints and that no one faction or ism holds all the answers. If that strikes you as a bit stuffy, antiquated, and needlessly uninspiring then it may be that conservatism doesn’t appeal to you. But just as a child who’s been coddled into believing the world is his for the taking, only to strike out on his own and learn the world can be a very cruel and unpleasant place, miscalculating political realities can have terrible long-term consequences. The hope conservatism offers is to remind us that there are things of far greater value than some ideology’s promise of the fleeting satisfaction of meeting our temporal needs and desires. But that is a mature viewpoint that does not tickle one’s vanities. If we want to nourish the soul with sweets rather than nutrients, conservatism will hardly satisfy.

Madison sought to answer the question of how best to secure liberty in a nation of warring factions by mitigating the effects of factions, not by addressing the cause. In other words, he didn’t promise us what we wanted, he taught us how to sacrifice our desires for the national interest so that both peace and liberty could be sustained. And for over half a century the Western world’s solution to absolute monarchy was the republican form of government Madison championed. But in 1847 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto promised a method of controlling the causes of factions by meeting the needs and desires of “the people.” They rejected the idea that Madison’s republic was the best society we could hope for, and their message soon led to another wave of revolutions that covered the entire planet. What are we to make of this alternative view of governing “the people?” That is something we’ll explore in Part 5.

This post originally appeared in The Millennial Review.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

We the People—Part 3 (Who Speaks for “The People?”)

Original artwork by Marisa Draeger

We the People—Part 3 (Who Speaks for “The People?”)

Politicians are fond of talking about “the people.” In Part 1 of this series I ended with two questions that must be answered before we can reasonably expect politicians to address the needs of “the people”: Namely, who, exactly, are “the people”? And who speaks on their behalf? I attempted to answer that first question in Part 2. Now we’ll explore the second.

One ought to be suspect of any political system which defines who speaks on behalf of “the people” either too narrowly or too broadly. Circumstance coupled with prudence dictates whether the polling of the majority, or the voice of the perceived “leaders” within each faction, or some truck driver who happened to call into a local radio talk show to weigh in on the matter, or some other means of discerning what “the people” have to say best represents what “the people” have to say. In practice, this means we should be suspect of the politician who seems wholly disinterested in “the people” just as we should be suspect of the politician who seems absolutely and consistently convinced they speak on behalf of “the people.”

Conservative politics is firmly rooted in prudence and circumstance, not ideology. That is one of the chief distinctions between libertarianism and conservatism: the libertarian seeks a political ideology derived from abstract reasoning; the conservative seeks to free humanity from any ideology, viewing “reason” as an essential, yet insufficient, means of discovering truth and ensuring justice. The conservative worldview accounts for the soul, which reason alone does not.

Conservative politics is not a formula whereby we realize the deepest yearnings and needs of our fellow citizens, for the conservative recognizes the deepest yearnings and needs of our fellow citizens are not found in politics. That which is sacred is permanent and demands our unquestioning submission; that which is political is circumstantial and derives its authority from the consent of the governed. That is why the conservative at times appeals to unyielding, timeless principles—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”—and at times refuses the simplistic, dogmatic solution without first giving consideration to circumstance.

So how might we employ circumstance to answer the question who speaks on behalf of “the people”?

It may be simpler to describe who speaks on behalf of “the people” by describing who doesn’t have exclusive rights to speak on their behalf: pollsters. I don’t mean that polling is irrelevant or unable to offer any insight into what “the people” have to say; I only mean that we should be wary of any political system that seeks to govern by popular sentiment, because governing by popular sentiment is like nailing Jell-O to a tree: what one generation calls progress the next may call folly. What one group considers vital to their interests may be unthinkable to another. And the voices of the various factions and interest groups we discussed in Part 2 are often drowned out in a majority response.

In my home state of Oklahoma legislators have been called into a lengthy special session after failing to pass a budget. In the ensuing debate a legislator advocated a specific tax policy because polling showed that the majority of Oklahomans were now in favor of that policy; which begs the question: has any polling been done to show whether Oklahomans favor legislators base the complexities of tax policy on polling data?

In what other occupation would this method of decision making be acceptable? If you scheduled an appointment with your doctor because you were concerned you showed warning signs of heart problems, how would you feel if your doctor said he’d polled the general public and concluded you weren’t likely to have a heart attack? If you entrusted your life savings with a financial advisor, would you want him basing his decisions on where to invest your money on his years of experience and consultations with his peers, or would you rather he stand on a busy street corner—clipboard in hand—and ask passers-by what they would do?

The efficacy and appropriateness of the majority vote is directly proportional to the level of expertise warranted in arriving at a desired outcome. Which is why polling is an effective tool for answering questions like who should win America’s Got Talent? or which new flavor of ice cream will sell best?; but it’s an ineffective tool for answering questions like should you have a heart transplant? or should you invest in gold? And much of our political endeavors fall into this latter category. From the nuances of tax policy to the intricacies of foreign affairs, what “the people” need to best represent their interests and protect their rights isn’t a pollster, but an unbiased representative with expertise on the subject matter. “What men really are seeking, or ought to seek, is not the right to govern, but the right to be governed well,” wrote Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind. The complexities of governing were never intended to be decided by majority vote, but by representatives elected by majority consent.

Some may object to this idea by pointing to websites such as Wikipedia to show that the collective knowledge of all of us is greater than the individual knowledge of any expert. And, indeed, that statement is true so far as it goes—the collective knowledge of all of us far surpasses the expert knowledge of only a select few. But examples such as Wikipedia only prove the point that the complete democratization isn’t the surest route to pragmatic knowledge. The reason we have faith that Wikipedia has something knowledgeable to contribute is because we presume that the responses were written by people with knowledge of the subject matter, and not the simple majority vote of all possible contributors. For example, when we read a Wikipedia article on obsessive-compulsive disorder we don’t assume the contributors were comprised of all the left-handed redheads from Topeka, Kansas, but rather psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health professionals.

And perhaps all this sounds uncontroversial enough that you’d think it odd I’d even venture to say it, but it cuts at the heart of the sort of populism that runs rampant in the Right today. The cult of populism implicitly—and sometimes explicitly—holds that political challenges today stem from the supposed incompetencies or corruptness of our politicians—the idea that if we simply had enough “Mr. Smiths” going to Washington, all would be well. And, while there may be some truth to that idea, radical populism ignores the truth that the average Joe can be just as corrupt and incompetent as any politician. Trump couldn’t have run a successful campaign of calling our leaders losers and morons unless a sizeable percentage of the electorate was inclined to agree with him.

But beyond the simple efficacy of providing qualified representatives to speak on behalf of “the people,” there is a far greater concern that simple polling of the majority fails to address: the rights of the minority. It may be the desire of the majority to confiscate the assets of the wealthiest 1% and spread them across the other 99%, but that would violate the rights of the 1%. And this balance between desires and rights is where majority rule fails us, for it often fails to make a distinction. Liberty herself is dependent upon the idea that humans have certain inalienable rights that cannot be infringed upon by the desires of others—no matter how big a group the “others” may be.

It’s not just about what “the people” desire; it’s about what they ought to desire. As Kirk said above, it’s not about the right to govern but the right to be governed well. And, while that may be viewed as too pretentious for a politician to say, it ought to be said nonetheless. You shouldn’t have to tax your imagination much to envision a scenario in which the desire of the majority could become depraved, unjust, or dangerous. In some societies what the majority desired was genocide.

So, if we were to endeavor to create a society in which those who spoke on behalf of “the people” were qualified to represent their respective interest groups, and to respect the distinction between desires and rights, what might this look like put into practice? What is the prudent, conservative response? That is something we’ll discuss in Part 3.

This post originally appeared in The Millennial Review.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog