NAIVETÉ? mine, that is
Third Way versus Middle Ground
Or as Jonah Goldberg put it in the title of his book:
Liberal Fascism?
Having attempted to digest Goldberg's arguments I am forced to
reexamine and rethink. But this is the purpose of intellectual
investigation; it's how one learns. My purpose here is not to refute
Goldberg but to reevaluate what I have discussed with regard to what
he has presented. He is not wrong, so the question is, is there room
for middle ground in light of human nature; in other words, is what I
have been pursuing even possible?
Golberg is Jewish and very conservative, thus his discussion includes
many references and arguments with respect to both constituencies,
as would be expected. We cannot purge ourselves of our beliefs and
when writing they come to the fore. One reviewer dismissed Liberal
Fascism arrogantly as the same old collection of conservative hype.
Some of the conservative dogma is surely there, and along with it
some of the same criticism of liberal dogma and hype. But to dismiss
his thesis as did this reviewer is short sighted at best and blindly
ignorant at worst. Today's liberalism (not, incidentally classical
liberalism) is unquestionably fascistic, using the proper definition of
fascism, and Golberg's discussion of how it developed that way it very
informative, and as he continually points out, not necessarily wrong.
The April 21 2008 cover story in US News and World Report put it this
way in its title: "The Return of Big Government." Without rehashing it let
it suffice to say that US News summed it up as: "Americans want
Uncle Sam to solve their problems." I think that is an accurate
summary and I have said similar in many ways as I have labored over
my perceptions of the evolution of our culture and the conclusion which
I have been approaching: it's about economics and our increasing
ignorance of it and its results. In short there is ample evidence that
when governments tinker with the economy and attempt to plan for
what is best for us they are more likely to screw it up than to make it
better. Yet, there also must be some controls over the unbridled greed
that would ensue if self interest were allowed to proceed unchecked.
This is the contested middle ground I have attempted to address.
Companies, corporations, are likely, if unrestricted, to act like
individuals to which they are legally compared: they will pursue self
interest. Yet government, when unrestricted, will also act like the
individuals of which it is made up: arrogantly, assured that it has the
answers and must pursue achieving them through whatever means
are necessary. The latter is that to which Golberg alludes, and his
logic is, in my opinion, irrefutable. Concentrated power will almost
always lead to abuse, however well intended it might be, and those
who wield it are almost inevitably susceptible to the conceit and
arrogance that they know best; when they pursue that belief it is
fascism.
The point this brings up is whether a middle ground is realistic, or
even possible, or, as the title of this section suggests, is it naive within
a culture that is increasingly convinced that government needs to solve
all of our problems? Middle ground suggests that there are areas in
which government needs to assume a role and there are areas in
which it needs to allow market forces to "work their magic" and that is
the challenge I envision. Goldberg's contribution in bringing up
fascism suggests that the voters' susceptibility to propaganda and
ignorance of the basics of economics and the historical experience it
has provided us (that is the historical experience the world has gained
by juggling market forces and controls) makes it problematic; but
impossible?
We have been drifting toward increased government controls with
increased complexity of the economic and social forces with which we
are faced. Man, despite appearances to the contrary, realizes his
inadequacies both individually and collectively and feels frustrated with
his inability to do anything about it. Labor unions served their purpose
at one time, and have atrophied. Is Democratic politics doing the
same? If so the reasons are the same: power corrupts and most that
achieve it are incapable of resisting its lure to abuse it for their own
benefits. We see those who have it tend to abuse it, or so it would
seem, and those who would have it use every opportunity to show us
how those that have it are abusing it. Of course, when they do achieve
it somehow they find themselves in the same position, and so it goes.
The problem as we all should well know, though we are constantly
lulled otherwise, is the corruptibility of human self interest.
I have contended that the unique measures taken by those that
brought about the structure of the government of the United States -
particularly federalism, rule of law, checks and balances (and a viable
middle class, without which are not likely to be tenable) - worked to
counter the natural tendencies of the elite that are chosen to rule, but
also of the voters that are prone to their own tendencies. They are, of
course, not perfect nor can they ever be, as those in power (as well as
those who want to be in power) find ways to circumvent them and use
them to their own advantage - this includes,incidentally, those that
want to be taken care of as well as the power elite. But they have at
least provided for a rough stability of countering and replacing - let's
call it keeping the pendulum swinging. On the other hand the feelings
of inadequacy and frustration ever increase with complexity, and there
is a human tendency to seek someone to take care of us. The history
of religion supports that, but the tendency is fairly obvious everywhere
where there are leaders to whom we look for guidance and support.
The fascist argument points to a tendency to seek the same with
secular "religion" with government taking over a similar role, which of
course is a precept of fascism wherever it has been practiced.
So, back to the question: is a middle ground practical? Even
Possible? I think it is, theoretically, assuming those who seek power
and those who elect them to it are sufficiently knowledgeable of the
economic ramifications of their decisions and are really interested in
maintaining what we have achieved, even when it is not in their own
personal interests to do so, in the face of continued international
competition and turbulence. Perhaps another word for middle ground
is dialog. Is it possible to create an environment in which facts and
logic can be discussed intelligently and with civility to weigh both
challenges; actions; and possible resulting circumstances, including
unintended - particularly economic?
Oh my, what a challenge. But note that it does not suggest that we
change human nature as some would wish, but will not occur, at least
in any foreseeable future. It suggests only that we continue to be able
to maintain the ability to curtail the ambitions of those who would
permanently subvert our interests to theirs - as well as balance the
interests of the rest of us - and force all others into honest dialog. In
that light I would suggest suspicion of the phrases "in the public
interest" or "for the general good". They are siren song phrases that
sound so good, but conceal a serious flaw: who determines what that
general good is, and how far are they willing to go, as related to those
who get in their way, to achieve it? Yet at the same time let's beware of
the cult of rights; when everyone's rights are sacrosanct we have
achieved anarchy, a state that cannot last beyond the next pocket of
power that emerges. Middle ground is all we have; let's hope we can
keep it viable, if by no other means than the continual swing o f the
pendulum.
So, naiveté? Perhaps it is. But what are the alternatives? To
surrender, just give up? That we will never achieve perfection is not an
excuse to abrogate. The middle ground goal - concept - is valid, even if
the hopes of achieving it are limited at best. I shall continue to
contend that extremism needs to be marginalized - and a middle
ground is the only place that can occur, however minimally. Hopefully,
in the long run even if not endowed with the necessary knowledge we
will have the sense to see the alternatives, and turn back toward the
middle. Pray not for knowledge, as that may be unrealistic; pray
instead for good sense, as that is possible - and even realistic.
Or as Jonah Goldberg put it in the title of his book:
Liberal Fascism?
Having attempted to digest Goldberg's arguments I am forced to
reexamine and rethink. But this is the purpose of intellectual
investigation; it's how one learns. My purpose here is not to refute
Goldberg but to reevaluate what I have discussed with regard to what
he has presented. He is not wrong, so the question is, is there room
for middle ground in light of human nature; in other words, is what I
have been pursuing even possible?
Golberg is Jewish and very conservative, thus his discussion includes
many references and arguments with respect to both constituencies,
as would be expected. We cannot purge ourselves of our beliefs and
when writing they come to the fore. One reviewer dismissed Liberal
Fascism arrogantly as the same old collection of conservative hype.
Some of the conservative dogma is surely there, and along with it
some of the same criticism of liberal dogma and hype. But to dismiss
his thesis as did this reviewer is short sighted at best and blindly
ignorant at worst. Today's liberalism (not, incidentally classical
liberalism) is unquestionably fascistic, using the proper definition of
fascism, and Golberg's discussion of how it developed that way it very
informative, and as he continually points out, not necessarily wrong.
The April 21 2008 cover story in US News and World Report put it this
way in its title: "The Return of Big Government." Without rehashing it let
it suffice to say that US News summed it up as: "Americans want
Uncle Sam to solve their problems." I think that is an accurate
summary and I have said similar in many ways as I have labored over
my perceptions of the evolution of our culture and the conclusion which
I have been approaching: it's about economics and our increasing
ignorance of it and its results. In short there is ample evidence that
when governments tinker with the economy and attempt to plan for
what is best for us they are more likely to screw it up than to make it
better. Yet, there also must be some controls over the unbridled greed
that would ensue if self interest were allowed to proceed unchecked.
This is the contested middle ground I have attempted to address.
Companies, corporations, are likely, if unrestricted, to act like
individuals to which they are legally compared: they will pursue self
interest. Yet government, when unrestricted, will also act like the
individuals of which it is made up: arrogantly, assured that it has the
answers and must pursue achieving them through whatever means
are necessary. The latter is that to which Golberg alludes, and his
logic is, in my opinion, irrefutable. Concentrated power will almost
always lead to abuse, however well intended it might be, and those
who wield it are almost inevitably susceptible to the conceit and
arrogance that they know best; when they pursue that belief it is
fascism.
The point this brings up is whether a middle ground is realistic, or
even possible, or, as the title of this section suggests, is it naive within
a culture that is increasingly convinced that government needs to solve
all of our problems? Middle ground suggests that there are areas in
which government needs to assume a role and there are areas in
which it needs to allow market forces to "work their magic" and that is
the challenge I envision. Goldberg's contribution in bringing up
fascism suggests that the voters' susceptibility to propaganda and
ignorance of the basics of economics and the historical experience it
has provided us (that is the historical experience the world has gained
by juggling market forces and controls) makes it problematic; but
impossible?
We have been drifting toward increased government controls with
increased complexity of the economic and social forces with which we
are faced. Man, despite appearances to the contrary, realizes his
inadequacies both individually and collectively and feels frustrated with
his inability to do anything about it. Labor unions served their purpose
at one time, and have atrophied. Is Democratic politics doing the
same? If so the reasons are the same: power corrupts and most that
achieve it are incapable of resisting its lure to abuse it for their own
benefits. We see those who have it tend to abuse it, or so it would
seem, and those who would have it use every opportunity to show us
how those that have it are abusing it. Of course, when they do achieve
it somehow they find themselves in the same position, and so it goes.
The problem as we all should well know, though we are constantly
lulled otherwise, is the corruptibility of human self interest.
I have contended that the unique measures taken by those that
brought about the structure of the government of the United States -
particularly federalism, rule of law, checks and balances (and a viable
middle class, without which are not likely to be tenable) - worked to
counter the natural tendencies of the elite that are chosen to rule, but
also of the voters that are prone to their own tendencies. They are, of
course, not perfect nor can they ever be, as those in power (as well as
those who want to be in power) find ways to circumvent them and use
them to their own advantage - this includes,incidentally, those that
want to be taken care of as well as the power elite. But they have at
least provided for a rough stability of countering and replacing - let's
call it keeping the pendulum swinging. On the other hand the feelings
of inadequacy and frustration ever increase with complexity, and there
is a human tendency to seek someone to take care of us. The history
of religion supports that, but the tendency is fairly obvious everywhere
where there are leaders to whom we look for guidance and support.
The fascist argument points to a tendency to seek the same with
secular "religion" with government taking over a similar role, which of
course is a precept of fascism wherever it has been practiced.
So, back to the question: is a middle ground practical? Even
Possible? I think it is, theoretically, assuming those who seek power
and those who elect them to it are sufficiently knowledgeable of the
economic ramifications of their decisions and are really interested in
maintaining what we have achieved, even when it is not in their own
personal interests to do so, in the face of continued international
competition and turbulence. Perhaps another word for middle ground
is dialog. Is it possible to create an environment in which facts and
logic can be discussed intelligently and with civility to weigh both
challenges; actions; and possible resulting circumstances, including
unintended - particularly economic?
Oh my, what a challenge. But note that it does not suggest that we
change human nature as some would wish, but will not occur, at least
in any foreseeable future. It suggests only that we continue to be able
to maintain the ability to curtail the ambitions of those who would
permanently subvert our interests to theirs - as well as balance the
interests of the rest of us - and force all others into honest dialog. In
that light I would suggest suspicion of the phrases "in the public
interest" or "for the general good". They are siren song phrases that
sound so good, but conceal a serious flaw: who determines what that
general good is, and how far are they willing to go, as related to those
who get in their way, to achieve it? Yet at the same time let's beware of
the cult of rights; when everyone's rights are sacrosanct we have
achieved anarchy, a state that cannot last beyond the next pocket of
power that emerges. Middle ground is all we have; let's hope we can
keep it viable, if by no other means than the continual swing o f the
pendulum.
So, naiveté? Perhaps it is. But what are the alternatives? To
surrender, just give up? That we will never achieve perfection is not an
excuse to abrogate. The middle ground goal - concept - is valid, even if
the hopes of achieving it are limited at best. I shall continue to
contend that extremism needs to be marginalized - and a middle
ground is the only place that can occur, however minimally. Hopefully,
in the long run even if not endowed with the necessary knowledge we
will have the sense to see the alternatives, and turn back toward the
middle. Pray not for knowledge, as that may be unrealistic; pray
instead for good sense, as that is possible - and even realistic.
Political Party Power
There is another problem that could elicit a
charge of naiveté, and it poses the most
important challenge to the concept of a
middle ground. It has to do with political
parties as practiced in the American system.
Politics in the US are dominated by two
major political parties and they vie for control
- for power to push their policies and political
views. Others are allowed, and attempt to
compete, but since none has gained national
competitiveness voters fear that voting for
other than one of the two major parties is
"wasting a vote" - that is in essence taking a
vote away from exercising power, since no
third party has been able to achieve sufficient
strength to effect power balance - or for that
matter to even electing representatives.
So it is unlikely that there will be a "middle
party." At least it would be difficult to envision
how it could happen. So the middle ground
cannot be conceived as a power base, but as
a philosophy. That is not attractive to
politicians that crave power and tend to
adhere to the commands of party leadership
- not always, but usually. Many newly elected
representatives enter congress with hight
hopes and sincere aspirations to do the right
thing, and make a contribution for what is the
best for the country. Unfortunately most are
quickly disabused of this futile dream by the
party leadership which disparages middle
ground that is not in consonance with party
positions and dictates.
Does that make middle ground, based on
individual conviction naive? In the real world
it probably does, in today's environment, and
that is perhaps a good deal of the problem.
But naive or no, it's not wrong to strive for it -
to preach it? And to be fair there are
representatives, even politicians, that stand
for their principles, and more than that, there
are many, even today, who do a lot more
compromising than might be evident. Horse
trading? Hey, that's politics - and
representing constituents. It happens more
than one might think - but not enough, in my
opinion. So naive or not, the preaching is
worth the effort.
I continue to stand for middle ground, naive
or not.
There is another problem that could elicit a
charge of naiveté, and it poses the most
important challenge to the concept of a
middle ground. It has to do with political
parties as practiced in the American system.
Politics in the US are dominated by two
major political parties and they vie for control
- for power to push their policies and political
views. Others are allowed, and attempt to
compete, but since none has gained national
competitiveness voters fear that voting for
other than one of the two major parties is
"wasting a vote" - that is in essence taking a
vote away from exercising power, since no
third party has been able to achieve sufficient
strength to effect power balance - or for that
matter to even electing representatives.
So it is unlikely that there will be a "middle
party." At least it would be difficult to envision
how it could happen. So the middle ground
cannot be conceived as a power base, but as
a philosophy. That is not attractive to
politicians that crave power and tend to
adhere to the commands of party leadership
- not always, but usually. Many newly elected
representatives enter congress with hight
hopes and sincere aspirations to do the right
thing, and make a contribution for what is the
best for the country. Unfortunately most are
quickly disabused of this futile dream by the
party leadership which disparages middle
ground that is not in consonance with party
positions and dictates.
Does that make middle ground, based on
individual conviction naive? In the real world
it probably does, in today's environment, and
that is perhaps a good deal of the problem.
But naive or no, it's not wrong to strive for it -
to preach it? And to be fair there are
representatives, even politicians, that stand
for their principles, and more than that, there
are many, even today, who do a lot more
compromising than might be evident. Horse
trading? Hey, that's politics - and
representing constituents. It happens more
than one might think - but not enough, in my
opinion. So naive or not, the preaching is
worth the effort.
I continue to stand for middle ground, naive
or not.
| THE ALTERNATIVES, AFTER ALL, ARE ABSOLUTISM AND ANARCHY!! |
Questioning Middle Ground
I believe that the historical fate of this county has been closely
bound to compromise, as I have said many times; that
compromise has never been easy and once resulted in a bloody
civil war. I have taken the position on this website that I wish to
defend the embattled middle ground that is defined by
compromise. Is it still possible?
Well, I am being forced to question the position – at least the
reality of it. Having spent some time recently working on
attempting to explain the competing opinions on issues, I am
finding it increasingly difficult to do. Bryon Caplan, in his book,
The Myth of the Rational Voter, offers some reasons why. The
problem, he says, is not rational ignorance, but rational
irrationality, that is, it’s not ignorance of facts that lead to position
formulation, but the shaping of that formulation by emotional
preconception. It is not a simple concept, and I am wrestling
with its understanding, partly due to my own preconceptions;
partly because I have difficulty giving up the belief in wide spread
ignorance.
Some specific Caplan comments include, “the only obstacle
to maximum social welfare is false beliefs about what policies
work best,” and “people who lack the initiative or creativity to
reach misconceptions under their own steam can relax and let
the media tow them there.” Ignorance or irrationality? They do
blur together, I think, because some ignorance, tinged with
emotional preconceptions, makes irrationality possible, so
finding Middle Ground faces strong resistance due to the
combination of the two. Caplan goes on to define four feeding
biases that shape what voters think: anti-market bias, anti-
foreign bias, make-work bias and pessimistic bias. I have
discussed these in more detail elsewhere, so I won’t again here,
but it got me to thinking about his challenge: most people are
neither willing nor able to give up on their biases, despite facts
offered to refute them.
So, what of Middle Ground? And more explicitly, what of
democratic republicanism? It is easy to become cynical about it,
but then how will it be affected? I think we are beginning to see
increasing paternalism, also discussed in another essay, and
bigger government. In a time of rural self-sufficiency it was one
thing to say let them fall back on their own resources and they
are best left alone; that is the basis of the Constitution: minimal
government and checks on and balances of too much
centralized power. But when 75% of the population live in a
suburban environment such self-sufficiency is less realistic.
On the other hand we have seen the ravages of both
socialism (government ownership of the means of production)
and despotism (of many forms); reasonable governing is beyond
the ability of bureaucrats under both extremes. So since we will
always be controlled by an elite, the question is how that elite will
be chosen and that, I believe, is the Middle Ground over which
we are destined to compete, defined by some form of
republicanism. If we can narrow the battle field to that there is
hope that the pendulum swings will not be so great that they will
take us to the extremes, and will therefore not lead to
catastrophic changes. The Middle Ground then becomes a
range of options rather than more narrowly defined agreed-upon
policy. Pierre Manent: “a representative republic replaces direct
democracy, making it possible to filter the wills and passions of
the people.” John Dunn: “had it really been rule by the people…it
would assuredly not have triumphed, but dissolved instead,
immediately and irreversibly, into chaos.” John Dunn again,
paraphrasing Madison in Federalist Number 10: “Faction cannot
be eliminated except by eliminating liberty itself. Its latent
causes are ‘sown in the nature of man’.”
I find myself continually returning to the same references that
more and more shape my arguments with myself. Can
democratic republicanism survive as currently constituted?
Constitutions are neither identical nor, in many instances, even
consistent. Some work better than others; some fall apart, but
then reconstitute themselves in some form or other. I believe
that the day of dictatorial rule is no longer possible – for long –
as the aristocracies of the late Middle Ages found to their
dismay. Will despotism disappear? No, when the pendulum
swings beyond the Middle Ground it will rear its ugly head, but
not for long because its nature is such that it will inevitably lead
to collapse and violence – public opinion has become too
powerful.
I began considering it perhaps impossible to defend Middle
Ground as I was viewing it, but convinced myself once again with
the benefit of my references, that some form of it will be the wave
of the future because of the power of public opinion. What form?
That will be the crucial – and undulating – question, for a Middle
Ground range of options including perhaps, (as described by
Robert D. Kaplan) anarchy, reflecting basically republican tenets
- some more authoritarian than others, some more tribal than
others, some even more democratic than others. We have found
that merely having free elections does not create modern
republics; neither does a free market system that lacks the
infrastructure to make it work. A republic without a strong,
functioning middle class with supporting infrastructure is likely to
be weak, corrupt and oligarchial, but at least offers hope for
something better – eventually; elections even when not free are
still elections. That does not suggest that the result will
necessarily be good for the people of a country; that’s another
matter; as stated above, many different results are inevitable.
But I believe the republican model, however flawed it might be,
will prevail, if for no other reason than that they people have
come to expect it.
Professor Tytler talked about the limited life span of empires,
and many are looking to the demise of the American empire – to
become what? They don’t say; they don’t know. But then we are
humans, with very limited life spans of our own, and that we think
in terms of the length of our life-times, more or less, is natural.
That would suggest that when the extremes are probed they will
eventually return to the steady state, which has become some
form of republicanism, replacing the despotism of the past,
which is no longer sustainable for any period of time; what
period of time? Maybe longer than is comfortable, but whereas
the steady state used to be tyranny I believe it has become
republicanism – of some sort – even republican tyranny, perhaps
no less tyrannical, but probably more flexible.
The flexibility of that Middle Ground will be crucial, and to
maintain it the goal will have to be keeping it within a range that
is sustainable despite strains that are inevitable. Ultimately that
Middle Ground must contain respect for property, human rights,
rule of law, reasonably free markets and sovereignty of the
people as represented by their chosen elite representatives. But
each of those is subject to ranges of their own. How much
rights? How free markets? What laws? And the nature of the
bureaucratic elite. We can only hope that a republican steady
state eventually leads to improvement; if not it will be replaced
quicker today than the tyrannies of antiquity.
Lest I leave the impression that the defense will be benign let
me set it straight: it will be anything but. Violence and struggle
are the nature and legacy of man; without it we cannot exist.
Caplan makes another interesting observation: “economists
emphasize the ‘long run’; the public cares about here and now.”
Since everything is politics (Rousseau), and all politics is
economics, I think the economic parallel is applicable. Middle
Ground is not a place in time, but a journey over time that must
be sustained within limits. That, I believe, is possible – and
perhaps inevitable – but not without a great deal of pain.
Part of that pain will come from differences in the shapes
republicanism takes. Today, for example, Russia and other
former Eastern Bloc countries, in different ways, are shaping
themselves in drastically different ways, based on the nature of
their cultures and how they came to republicanism. Russia
conducts elections and sports the trappings of a republic, but a
very oligarchic and centrally controlled republic; in other words,
very Russian. Many questions arise: what roll will giant
international corporations play? How will international crime
factor? What roll will corruption play? Can world institutions
such as the United Nations play an effective roll? How will
republican governments deal with resource competition? The
fact is that, despite republican institutions and elections, different
republics will look and function differently and go through phases
that are not synchronous; how will each deal with this on the
international stage?
And there is the challenge of the defense of Middle Ground: to
keep pain tolerable without breaking the mold, particularly when
it is realized that there will likely never be a single world Middle
Ground, but many competing and continually changing Middle
Grounds, all different and all striving for self-preservation and
dominance. How could that ever be peaceful? But can the strife
be kept within limits? Perhaps it can, but with great difficulty.
Rational irrationality within voting blocs will not help; ignorance
and differences in levels of ignorance will complicate it
unimaginably, particularly when one nation’s dogma is another
nation’s ignorance; truth and reality, morality and sincerity, even
the basis of laws vary from one to another; and if compromise is
difficult within a republic consider how much more so between
and among republics. Imperfect as it is, the United Nations has
given us an example of how difficult the challenge.
Middle Ground, individually within countries or collectively
among countries, will not be achieved by naively discounting
human nature (a hated term among social scientists), culture
and national realities, or pretending that all that is needed is to
want peace. Most nations prefer peace, but on their own terms
and in line with their own needs. Nor can it be wished into
existence. Middle Ground in the future, as in the past, will be the
result of hard work by diplomats and leaders dedicated to the
concept. The structure – in most nations and certainly not
across nations does not yet exist nor will it ever, by viewing it
through a prism of fantasy. Nor, as has been alleged by some,
can the “wisdom of the masses” provide a viable solution. But in
ways similar to those of free markets, the collective self-interests
of people within countries and across the world can work to
dampen violence and aggression, or at least keep it within limits
– The Middle Ground – and if they have the capability to select
and reject the elites that lead them, however imperfectly they
effect those choices.
Call it the invisible hand of international politics – or the hand
of God, if that works better. But we must understand that in a
world of limited resources that has proven itself inconsistent at
best; populated by people with varying degrees of ignorance,
hate and beliefs; and guided by leaders who too often are
blinded by thirst for wealth and power and chosen frequently for
the wrong reasons, the result will never be perfect nor without
serious differences in specific motivations and expectations, nor
incidentally will corruption ever be eradicated for one man’s
corruption is another man’s paternalism. Middle Ground is not a
place, but a journey – a very arduous and frustrating journey that
never ends. But it is still worth taking, because that is our only
chance for even moderate success.
I believe that the historical fate of this county has been closely
bound to compromise, as I have said many times; that
compromise has never been easy and once resulted in a bloody
civil war. I have taken the position on this website that I wish to
defend the embattled middle ground that is defined by
compromise. Is it still possible?
Well, I am being forced to question the position – at least the
reality of it. Having spent some time recently working on
attempting to explain the competing opinions on issues, I am
finding it increasingly difficult to do. Bryon Caplan, in his book,
The Myth of the Rational Voter, offers some reasons why. The
problem, he says, is not rational ignorance, but rational
irrationality, that is, it’s not ignorance of facts that lead to position
formulation, but the shaping of that formulation by emotional
preconception. It is not a simple concept, and I am wrestling
with its understanding, partly due to my own preconceptions;
partly because I have difficulty giving up the belief in wide spread
ignorance.
Some specific Caplan comments include, “the only obstacle
to maximum social welfare is false beliefs about what policies
work best,” and “people who lack the initiative or creativity to
reach misconceptions under their own steam can relax and let
the media tow them there.” Ignorance or irrationality? They do
blur together, I think, because some ignorance, tinged with
emotional preconceptions, makes irrationality possible, so
finding Middle Ground faces strong resistance due to the
combination of the two. Caplan goes on to define four feeding
biases that shape what voters think: anti-market bias, anti-
foreign bias, make-work bias and pessimistic bias. I have
discussed these in more detail elsewhere, so I won’t again here,
but it got me to thinking about his challenge: most people are
neither willing nor able to give up on their biases, despite facts
offered to refute them.
So, what of Middle Ground? And more explicitly, what of
democratic republicanism? It is easy to become cynical about it,
but then how will it be affected? I think we are beginning to see
increasing paternalism, also discussed in another essay, and
bigger government. In a time of rural self-sufficiency it was one
thing to say let them fall back on their own resources and they
are best left alone; that is the basis of the Constitution: minimal
government and checks on and balances of too much
centralized power. But when 75% of the population live in a
suburban environment such self-sufficiency is less realistic.
On the other hand we have seen the ravages of both
socialism (government ownership of the means of production)
and despotism (of many forms); reasonable governing is beyond
the ability of bureaucrats under both extremes. So since we will
always be controlled by an elite, the question is how that elite will
be chosen and that, I believe, is the Middle Ground over which
we are destined to compete, defined by some form of
republicanism. If we can narrow the battle field to that there is
hope that the pendulum swings will not be so great that they will
take us to the extremes, and will therefore not lead to
catastrophic changes. The Middle Ground then becomes a
range of options rather than more narrowly defined agreed-upon
policy. Pierre Manent: “a representative republic replaces direct
democracy, making it possible to filter the wills and passions of
the people.” John Dunn: “had it really been rule by the people…it
would assuredly not have triumphed, but dissolved instead,
immediately and irreversibly, into chaos.” John Dunn again,
paraphrasing Madison in Federalist Number 10: “Faction cannot
be eliminated except by eliminating liberty itself. Its latent
causes are ‘sown in the nature of man’.”
I find myself continually returning to the same references that
more and more shape my arguments with myself. Can
democratic republicanism survive as currently constituted?
Constitutions are neither identical nor, in many instances, even
consistent. Some work better than others; some fall apart, but
then reconstitute themselves in some form or other. I believe
that the day of dictatorial rule is no longer possible – for long –
as the aristocracies of the late Middle Ages found to their
dismay. Will despotism disappear? No, when the pendulum
swings beyond the Middle Ground it will rear its ugly head, but
not for long because its nature is such that it will inevitably lead
to collapse and violence – public opinion has become too
powerful.
I began considering it perhaps impossible to defend Middle
Ground as I was viewing it, but convinced myself once again with
the benefit of my references, that some form of it will be the wave
of the future because of the power of public opinion. What form?
That will be the crucial – and undulating – question, for a Middle
Ground range of options including perhaps, (as described by
Robert D. Kaplan) anarchy, reflecting basically republican tenets
- some more authoritarian than others, some more tribal than
others, some even more democratic than others. We have found
that merely having free elections does not create modern
republics; neither does a free market system that lacks the
infrastructure to make it work. A republic without a strong,
functioning middle class with supporting infrastructure is likely to
be weak, corrupt and oligarchial, but at least offers hope for
something better – eventually; elections even when not free are
still elections. That does not suggest that the result will
necessarily be good for the people of a country; that’s another
matter; as stated above, many different results are inevitable.
But I believe the republican model, however flawed it might be,
will prevail, if for no other reason than that they people have
come to expect it.
Professor Tytler talked about the limited life span of empires,
and many are looking to the demise of the American empire – to
become what? They don’t say; they don’t know. But then we are
humans, with very limited life spans of our own, and that we think
in terms of the length of our life-times, more or less, is natural.
That would suggest that when the extremes are probed they will
eventually return to the steady state, which has become some
form of republicanism, replacing the despotism of the past,
which is no longer sustainable for any period of time; what
period of time? Maybe longer than is comfortable, but whereas
the steady state used to be tyranny I believe it has become
republicanism – of some sort – even republican tyranny, perhaps
no less tyrannical, but probably more flexible.
The flexibility of that Middle Ground will be crucial, and to
maintain it the goal will have to be keeping it within a range that
is sustainable despite strains that are inevitable. Ultimately that
Middle Ground must contain respect for property, human rights,
rule of law, reasonably free markets and sovereignty of the
people as represented by their chosen elite representatives. But
each of those is subject to ranges of their own. How much
rights? How free markets? What laws? And the nature of the
bureaucratic elite. We can only hope that a republican steady
state eventually leads to improvement; if not it will be replaced
quicker today than the tyrannies of antiquity.
Lest I leave the impression that the defense will be benign let
me set it straight: it will be anything but. Violence and struggle
are the nature and legacy of man; without it we cannot exist.
Caplan makes another interesting observation: “economists
emphasize the ‘long run’; the public cares about here and now.”
Since everything is politics (Rousseau), and all politics is
economics, I think the economic parallel is applicable. Middle
Ground is not a place in time, but a journey over time that must
be sustained within limits. That, I believe, is possible – and
perhaps inevitable – but not without a great deal of pain.
Part of that pain will come from differences in the shapes
republicanism takes. Today, for example, Russia and other
former Eastern Bloc countries, in different ways, are shaping
themselves in drastically different ways, based on the nature of
their cultures and how they came to republicanism. Russia
conducts elections and sports the trappings of a republic, but a
very oligarchic and centrally controlled republic; in other words,
very Russian. Many questions arise: what roll will giant
international corporations play? How will international crime
factor? What roll will corruption play? Can world institutions
such as the United Nations play an effective roll? How will
republican governments deal with resource competition? The
fact is that, despite republican institutions and elections, different
republics will look and function differently and go through phases
that are not synchronous; how will each deal with this on the
international stage?
And there is the challenge of the defense of Middle Ground: to
keep pain tolerable without breaking the mold, particularly when
it is realized that there will likely never be a single world Middle
Ground, but many competing and continually changing Middle
Grounds, all different and all striving for self-preservation and
dominance. How could that ever be peaceful? But can the strife
be kept within limits? Perhaps it can, but with great difficulty.
Rational irrationality within voting blocs will not help; ignorance
and differences in levels of ignorance will complicate it
unimaginably, particularly when one nation’s dogma is another
nation’s ignorance; truth and reality, morality and sincerity, even
the basis of laws vary from one to another; and if compromise is
difficult within a republic consider how much more so between
and among republics. Imperfect as it is, the United Nations has
given us an example of how difficult the challenge.
Middle Ground, individually within countries or collectively
among countries, will not be achieved by naively discounting
human nature (a hated term among social scientists), culture
and national realities, or pretending that all that is needed is to
want peace. Most nations prefer peace, but on their own terms
and in line with their own needs. Nor can it be wished into
existence. Middle Ground in the future, as in the past, will be the
result of hard work by diplomats and leaders dedicated to the
concept. The structure – in most nations and certainly not
across nations does not yet exist nor will it ever, by viewing it
through a prism of fantasy. Nor, as has been alleged by some,
can the “wisdom of the masses” provide a viable solution. But in
ways similar to those of free markets, the collective self-interests
of people within countries and across the world can work to
dampen violence and aggression, or at least keep it within limits
– The Middle Ground – and if they have the capability to select
and reject the elites that lead them, however imperfectly they
effect those choices.
Call it the invisible hand of international politics – or the hand
of God, if that works better. But we must understand that in a
world of limited resources that has proven itself inconsistent at
best; populated by people with varying degrees of ignorance,
hate and beliefs; and guided by leaders who too often are
blinded by thirst for wealth and power and chosen frequently for
the wrong reasons, the result will never be perfect nor without
serious differences in specific motivations and expectations, nor
incidentally will corruption ever be eradicated for one man’s
corruption is another man’s paternalism. Middle Ground is not a
place, but a journey – a very arduous and frustrating journey that
never ends. But it is still worth taking, because that is our only
chance for even moderate success.