Republicans, Democrats, & The Militarization of Society
by Jack Kerwick | View comments |
Print This Post
Neither the Republican neo-conservative nor Democrat welfare-state liberal parties seem to be aware of how each is but an expression of one and the same style of politics, what Michael Oakeshott referred to as “rationalism” and F.A. Hayek called “constructivism.”
There is something strangely vaudevillian about contemporary American politics. “The Right” — the Republican/neo-conservative Party — labors incessantly to sustain the popular impression that it alone exists to advance such “conservative first principles” as “limited government,” “individual liberty,” and a “strong national defense.” Those on “the Right” are committed to “lower taxes,” “deregulation,” and, in general, “free enterprise.” They are also committed to waging and winning “the War on Terror,” however long that may take. “The Left” — the Democratic/welfare-state liberal Party — misses no opportunity to reinforce the deceptive self-image that it has worked so long and hard at crafting. It would have Americans believe that it alone is the party of “civil rights,” and “racial, gender, and economic equality.” Those on “the Left” complain about the militaristic and imperialistic aspirations of their right-wing opponents, and about how much more constructively the resources that have been deployed to fund America’s military adventures abroad could have been spent right here at home.
Neither the Republican neo-conservative nor Democrat welfare-state liberal parties seem to be aware of how each is but an expression of one and the same style of politics. The conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott referred to this style as “rationalism.” F.A. Hayek called it “constructivism.” Let’s call it “constructivist-rationalism.”
There are many ways in which to characterize the constructivist-rationalist disposition, but I want to look only at that feature that is relevant for our purposes. The constructivist-rationalist in politics is one who sees society as a “community.” The members of a genuine community share a common vision of a common good. This good is held to be the highest good to which they can collectively aspire. All other goods are subservient to this supreme one, and derive their value from their relation to it. The ultimate communal good could be “Happiness,” “Virtue,” “Freedom,” “Equality,” “Justice,” etc, depending on the particular community in question. When society is conceived as a community in this “thick” sense, government assumes the role of a “manager” or “leader,” and is entrusted with the responsibility of bringing its might to bear upon the task of realizing “the common good.” Homogeneity or “unity” is of a vital importance for a community. What diversity of activities and opinions are permitted is determined by the overarching purpose that defines the community.
Both neo-conservatives and welfare-state liberals view the United States as a community. In spite of all their talk of “individual liberty,” neo-conservatives enthusiastically support an endless “war” against an abstract enemy — “Terror.” As others have pointed out before, it is in times of war that society most readily has imposed upon it the character of a “community.” In war it is expected that everyone will sacrifice their time, energy, money, or lives for “the war effort,” for the end of “victory.” The only practices that can be allowed in war are those that either facilitate or at least don’t impede “the mission of the troops.” Government assumes unto itself new power during war, and is permitted to do things to which its citizens in peacetime might object.
For all of their rhetoric concerning “individual civil rights” or “civil liberties” (which amount to the same thing), welfare-state liberal Democrats, even more obviously than neo-conservative Republicans, imagine America as a community. It would be a mistake, I believe, to attribute to welfare-state liberals a preference for the ideal of Equality over Liberty. This is how neo-conservatives tend to frame the key difference between themselves and their opponents. Rather, welfare-state liberals define Freedom differently than neo-conservatives: Freedom presupposes and consists in a greater material condition of Equality. Though at present welfare-state liberals by and large style themselves and are depicted by their neo-conservative Republican rivals as “anti-war,” they are at least as intent as the latter, and probably much more so, in fact, on treating government as an estate manager and agent of “perfection.” Recall, welfare-state liberals don’t regret that we have spent exorbitant sums of taxpayers’ money; they regret only that we have spent exorbitant sums of money on the “War on Terror” and Iraq. That is, their only regret is that that same amount of money wasn’t spent funding their favored projects. Welfare-state liberals employ the constructivist-rationalist language of war frequently to justify their attempts to undermine the exercise of individuality and the diversity of conduct that arises from it. The “War on Poverty,” is the most classic example of a liberal democratic “war” into the service of which American citizens have been conscripted for about half of the time that John McCain expects for us to be in Iraq. Welfare-state liberals oppose “The Patriot Act” because it permits government access to citizens’ phone and library records, but they have zero problems with an income tax system that compels citizens to reveal to government such personal information as the amount of money they earn each year, how many hours they work, the people for whom they work, how many people depend on them, and so forth.
In short, welfare state liberals, at least as much as their opponents, want to “militarize” society. They are, in a significant sense, just as “militaristic.” Neither sort of constructivist-rationalist has any use for an alternative model of society, one that differs from “the community” model not in degree, but in kind. From this standpoint, modern American society is not a “community,” but an “association.” And it is an association of a particular type. Citizens are united by a common interest in attending to their shared institutions, the terms, as it were, by which their peaceful co-existence with one another is preserved and furthered. They are not, however, united by any “common good.” In this sort of association, what Oakeshott calls “civil association,” individual citizens choose for themselves which activities they will pursue. They are all alike bound by the same laws, rules that specify the conditions that they must satisfy as they go about their business. But there is no common purpose — Equality, Prosperity, Security, Freedom, Virtue, Holiness, or Justice, etc. — to which they must contribute.
This understanding of society as a “civil association” has traditionally found expression in the thought of such classical conservative and liberal thinkers as Edmund Burke, David Hume, Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, and Michael Oakeshott. It is has no place, though, among neo-conservative Republicans and welfare-state liberal Democrats. In spite of their incessant bickering with each other, the two camps are united in their steadfast support of a “community-centered” model of society and, thus, society’s militarization.
jackk610@verizon.net
Read more articles by Jack Kerwick
The kind of society you talk about - a civil association - in which individuals choose for themselves which activities they will pursue, is unfortunately unlikely to occur during our lifetimes. Such a society would have no use for the system of taxation, leaving it to individuals to pay for those services they want and use. People are generally against the idea of abolishing the tax system, for a multitude of reasons.
I do applaud your article, Dr. Kerwick. I agree that there is more fundamental similarity between the two current sides than there are differences.
Comment by AMAI | June 13, 2008
"Homogeneity or “unity” is of a vital importance for a community."
These were the goals of Stalin and Hitler, not a conservative.
"against an abstract enemy — “Terror.”"
So, the 9/11/2001 attacks and Al Qaeda were abstract? I guess we have been living in a parallel world.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | June 13, 2008
Once again, your references to "neo"-conservatism are based on a concept of such that you have built in your own mind, and presume that everyone who does not practice your self-styled brand of "classical"-conservatism subscribes to.
The alternative to the system you describe is anarchy. Or, if it suits your taste a little better, anarcho-libertarianism. Such a system is impossible to maintain without government of some form, meaning that it is impossible to maintain without *authority*. Since anarchy and anarcho-libertarianism are characterized by the removal of all government and authority, the system is incapable of sustaining itself. All of my individual liberties, when freely expressed, can and most likely will intrude upon your personal liberties. My personal freedom to rob you is incompatible with your personal freedom to your own property. My personal freedom to kill you is incompatible with your freedom to be alive. If one of us should decide to exercise our freedom to rob or kill the other, there is nothing in an anarchistic or anarcho-libertarian society to prevent us from doing so, or to punish us for doing so (and, according to anarchist and anarcho-libertarian ideology, there shouldn't be).
We maintain a "community" government to secure the liberties that we believe should be expressed (Freedom of religion, association, speech, etc) from those that we believe should not be expressed (Freedom to abuse, freedom to steal, freedom to coerce, etc). We prioritize these goals by electing representatives, and by mutual consent, we agree to abide by their decisions. That is why we are currently forced to abide by the current government's decision to enter into a foreign engagement with Iraq, and why we were forced to abide by the then-current government's decision to, say, move to a fiat currency in the 1930's. That doesn't mean that people under such a system aren't free to pursue whatever activities they wish, just that they have to abide by the prevailing rules of the government they agreed to subject themselves to. We don't have conscripted military service, so one is free to serve in the military, or not to. Likewise, the government does not conscript people to their occupation - you are free to choose your career. By agreeing to the rules laid out in the federal constitution and federal law, along with those of your state, you agree that somebody else, who you elect, gets to choose how to spend your money. That's the system we live under, as laid out by the constitution a little more than a couple hundred years ago. Competing groups who prioritize their liberties and goals differently have always exchanged control of the offices of government to further the liberties and goals they prioritize. I would hardly call the men who instituted this system "Neo"-conservatives (though they have indeed been called that by "Paleo"/"Classical"-conservatives) or welfare-state liberals. Representational government, whereby decisions are made by majority consensus of representatives, and different schools of thought compete to further their goals and priorities, is pretty much the democratic republic that our founders established. You can't really castigate either side - "Neo"-conservative Republican or welfare-state liberal Democrat - for working within such a system to further their goals.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 15, 2008
I have to admit, I am not entirely sure whether to agree with Dr. Kerwick or take offense. Regardless, his article is less than I’d expect from a doctor of humanities. For one thing, it isn’t particularly coherent; leaving it to the reader to sort out all he is saying (or trying to say) about us. For another, he’s too much the purist/elitist (though I doubt he meant to be). Thirdly, he’s something of the pedant, typical among school teachers. His theme or points are vaguely defined, underlying rationale are all but missing, and philosophical references and/or proofs non-existent. Kerwick is the supposed ‘expert’ on political-stuff, yet all he gives us is an opinion of how we operate ‘wrongly’; suggesting we have in some manner ‘failed’ some test of what it takes to be ‘conservative’. In fact and unlike ‘socialism’, the term conservative can mean a great many things and is context sensitive. Relative to a Karl Marx and modern-liberals, I am very conservative; but relative to Henry II, Osman I, or Gengis Khan, I am quite the liberal and I can safely say the same of Kerwick. Is he more conservative than I? Possibly, though I am equally certain we could waste days arguing which of us is better qualified, each staking our case on minimally differentiable criteria. Personally, I am less choosy who I keep company with in Club Right-Wing. I realize none of us is likely to have the same exact criteria; but if we exclude too many will find ourselves in a dismissible minority and are individually as susceptible as the next conservative-wannabe of expulsion. Better, then, to admit to less than perfect conservatism and have the support and respect of those most like us; than to swell the ranks of our enemies with denounced friends.
There are several points I am inclined to dispute in Kerwick’s article, but will limit myself to the confusing of conservatives with liberals on the basis of ‘community’. If you are going to stake out boundaries for conservatism, it ought, at least, begin with a definition capable of resolution (which community is not). Failing such a resolution, we must rely on consensus; and consensus has a nasty habit of marginalizing purists if for no other reason than those less compromising reject too many to maintain much of a following.
Community is not, in itself sufficient to equate and confound conservatives with liberals, and serves only to mire us in endless squabbling. I could as easily argue ‘true’ conservatives do not bemoan war like some sniveling liberal (which I don’t). Arguing neo-cons are hung up on ‘community’ can (with slight shifts in wording) apply equally to paleo-cons, theocrats and even anarchists. Community (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/community ) is at the core of all politics. Claiming it can be side-stepped or transcended, therefore, is nonsense. Surely, if you blur the lines sufficiently, you can confuse socialist with libertarian, secularist with theocrat, capitalist with poverty-loving utopian, &c; yet we know these are unalike more than alike, and unalike by what they disagree than agree on. Agreed? Outside politics, they (we) have far more in common than not, but that still does not make us politically alike. If we agree conservatives and liberals are alike in both are concerned with community, but disagree on the objects of said community, then that is one of the measures by which we define the difference. [I apologize I have not said this any more succinctly than Kerwick disputes it. Perhaps someone else can do better with it.]
Our Constitution is, indeed, a communal compact written by our Framers prescribing, not one but, six distinct objectives and aspirations. These are: a stronger/better alliance (union) than the loose confederation it replaced, a better and broader system of justice, greater domestic tranquility, defense of Commoner interests (not just those of an elite) and the nation, general welfare, and personal liberty. This compact, by its very acceptance, assumed such a community of interests exists; with values, aspirations, and/or interest held in common and transcending previous understandings of ‘state’. Moreover, it coalesced more than a century of political and philosophical jockeying between distinct ‘groups of (sometimes radical) activists’ working toward common and well defined goals of societal transformation (versus a preservation of the status quo).
It should be noted, that, although liberty was a critical object of the Constitution, it was not the central or exclusive one Kerwick makes it. What differentiates our Constitution and culture, then, is that, for the first time, person-liberty was listed as a key object of government where, previously, it was not. The other objects were more or less important to good and stable government, but are not new.
(cont.)
Comment by Bob Stapler | June 18, 2008
(cont.)
If the United States is not such a community, then what is it? I assert the opposite: it is the model of societal self-transformation and an ongoing aspiration; one causing momentous shifts in freedom around the globe. And, if not such a community, why would gentlemen like Adams, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington have staked their reputations on it or gone to such lengths to ensure it would last more than their lifetimes. The assertion we are not or should not think and act as a community (an exceptional one with earmarks of greatness, at that) is, to me, ludicrous. For such a stunted idea men bled and died? Without any sort of community, all we have is random groups of people inhabiting an expanse of land with nothing in common: no shared values, no reason to assist or defend each other, and no aspiration toward improving society to better reflect those transformative principles and preserve them for others. Kerwick’s, then, is a formulary for stagnant chaos, one in which liberty survives only until the bigger, meaner, more rapacious dog comes along; an undefended and indefensible non-system of personal liberty. Our Framers would have achieved that much by doing nothing. Therefore, they saw a need for some structure that preserves this freedom a little longer; and even hoped we might go further than they in ‘perfecting’ it (Don’t take my word for this, they said as much in abundant letters, documents, and harangues).
In part, I suspect, Mr. Kerwick of lamenting the late, great ‘rugged-individual’; that fiercely independent type from the early years of our Republic who gave it its distinct character by making ‘liberty’ to the next level. I also miss having more of this type around, but recognize him historically as the exception than the rule. In a sense, we are victims of our own success; spending in comfort and security the wild freedom they profited by. However, I believe Kerwick is assigning wrong causes to this degeneracy in personal and national character; or rather he assigns the symptom as preliminary to itself. He regards conservatives and liberals as un-differentiable because neither exhibits the frontiersman’s flagrant disregard; forgetting the frontiersman did not have government constantly breathing down his neck. I am pretty sure I’d be his very model of the rugged-individualist, given half the chance. As it is, I do my share of dodging slavery.
Radical behavior and self-serving politicians are more a symptom than a cause; or, rather, there is a symbiotic relation between rot and success as between parasite and host. The way of this corruption of the ‘independent man’ is through the voluntary surrender of our independence; and the way it is accomplished is through systematically convincing us we need government more than is really good for us. Having created a thousand such dependencies, government makes us fearful more of ‘losing’ privileges; and plays us off against one another – each defending his particular ‘rice bowl’. In that sense, Kerwick is right regarding modus operandi (assuming that is what he is saying). However, I am persuaded the incentives among liberal-socialist symbionts are far stronger than among conservatives for the simple reason tangible personal paybacks (e.g., Medicaid, welfare, class-action awards, tax breaks) are more corrupting than intangibles (e.g., defense, rule of law) and tangible community benefits (e.g., roads, libraries, commerce). One definition of conservatism then is: the preference by some to reverse or arrest the increase in dependence on government; and it is only an insistence on ‘reversal’ distinguishing the paleo- and condemning the neo-con.
Normally, this kind of degeneracy occurs in much less time than the 219 years elapsed since the Constitution. For more than a hundred of those years, most people conducted themselves with little reference to government. How? Were they more vigilant and jealous of liberty? Were they less political? Were they free from exposure to ideas anathema to liberty? Were they made of better ‘stuff’ than we? The answer to all of these is no. Simply put, government needs time to create the shackles it takes to bind and make us timid. Usually this takes two or three generations, but our early republic gave us one huge advantage – land. Consider how much faster our freedoms would have eroded had we not had a seemingly endless frontier in which to liberate the undisciplined from the perennially authoritarian.
(cont.)
Comment by Bob Stapler | June 18, 2008
(cont.)
Would not government have been capable sooner to rein us in? In those early years, unclaimed land and undeveloped opportunities unsusceptible to government served to delay the usual concentration of power. The fact of a large, empty, inviting and as yet undisciplined frontier meant those resenting authority could escape governmental discipline, and anyone overburdened by taxes or resenting conscription could equally escape for a time. Much the same happened in other English colonies and commonwealths. English ‘libertarianism’ enhanced the sense of freedom a frontier-life naturally creates; giving it a theoretical foundation and a reverence unrivaled in previous experience. When the frontier dried up, we lost one of our two main pillars of personal-liberty; shifting us toward shared-liberty as the next best thing. It is even likely shared-liberty is closer to the Framer’s intent, as they can’t have fully realized the compounding and altering effects of an open frontier, and we are only now getting back to that experiment in freedom they envisioned within a closed system. The real measure of their success or failure, then, hinges on what we do with it now.
The downside is we may have bypassed a critical phase necessary to maintaining freedom without the benefit of an outlet. We are, now, less fit to resist encroachment precisely because we are many generations removed from the culture in which Lockean ideals were gospel. Whereas in 1789 ‘Whiggery’ was at its height, hardly anyone today recognizes the term or its meaning. This puts a great deal of reliance on the tiny few who do (and whatever allies we can convince) to preserve its values. Frontiers, more than Constitution and libertarian principles, may have kept government small and dependent on constituents for the simple reason government cannot impose taxes and burdens on a people beyond its ability to coerce, but it did not do so as a consequence of vigilance which might have left a more lasting impression on national psyche (the value frequently defended and at substantial cost, is the one we treasure). Once the frontier filled up and the great migrations petered out, the dynamic changed. We became a people all but oblivious to that passion for freedom common to revolutionaries. We recaptured some of it in our Civil War, but, by the 1890s, rebellion against government was no longer in our lexicon. From there on, we saw rapid growth in government, increased compliance, increased taxation, and effective law enforcement. The wonder is not that people now mistake other objectives as freedom; the wonder is we were able to maintain real freedom (without the nanny-net) as long as we did.
It is not impossible for a people to maintain freedom against usurpation, but it is harder without frontiers to dissipate government’s grasp. It takes greater vigilance on our part than it does living beyond governmental reach. The greater threat, now, to our liberty is our own too great desire for and reliance on security and the ‘good life’; not government’s desire to wrest power from us. Nor does it rise and fall on abstractions regarding ‘community’. It survives to the degree we cherish our liberty from government more than want personal safety underwritten by government (a chimera, at best); and can be recaptured, with or without reference to community, in the same measure. Government can steal your labor and your goods, but can only rob you of freedom as you allow. Short of stuffing us in ovens, regaining freedom involves no more than standing on our own two feet; regardless the power government has with which to hold us down. Refuse government’s perks and coddling and you are free; accept them and it owns you – perhaps forever. It is that simple.
Comment by Bob Stapler | June 18, 2008