1
   

The genie of power and the bottle of restraint.

 
 
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 05:19 pm
For those of you who like to read, I thought I would share this essay that appeared in my daily paper.

I would love to hear from anyone who cares to comment but I am especially interested in hearing from our more politically conservative posters.

Thanks!

Quote:
Conservatives in conflict

The Republican far right charges ahead with limits on individual freedoms, trampling the record of the party's libertarians

Sunday, April 24, 2005

GARRETT EPPS

In the past few months, American conservatism has swerved toward a power-hungry self-righteousness that scares many Republicans. One of the fearful is John Danforth.

The former senator wrote that "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." The policy of the party, he warned, seemed to be "the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law."

Danforth -- a Missouri Republican, hero to pro-lifers, patron of Clarence Thomas, ordained priest and tireless conservative -- makes an unlikely Jeremiah. But he speaks for many citizens who worry that something has gone badly awry since George Bush's inauguration.

On that occasion, Bush proclaimed "there is only one force in history that can . . . reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."

But since then, Bush and his party have seemed less like liberators and more like the religious police. Their real inspiration seems to be Pat Buchanan's speech to the 1992 Republican convention, where he warned that the enemy was us, regular Americans to be defeated with "force, rooted in justice, backed by courage" that would "take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country."

The new GOP agenda seems to be less, not more, freedom. Consider the efforts to bar gay marriage, ban stem-cell research or impose school prayer. Consider thinly disguised appeals by Republicans in Congress for impeachment or even assassination of judges whose rulings they dislike.

And finally, consider the extraordinary intervention of Congress into the private death of one woman, Terri Schiavo. Polls differ about public attitudes toward end-of-life care, but they agree that the Schiavo debacle has hurt Congress and the president; even Tom DeLay is in trouble in his conservative home district.

Conservative hypocrisy? No. Bush is sincere when he proclaims freedom. So is Delay when he threatens judges.

American conservatism has not one but two hearts: one is libertarian, the other authoritarian. One heart proclaims "government must not make me live like others;" the other insists "government should make others live like me." The first heart beats in old-style conservatives such as Danforth and John McCain; the second burns within figures such as John Ashcroft and Antonin Scalia.

Conservatives have all the power

Make no mistake: This conflict is not unique to the conservative movement. American religion, for example, has always wavered between relying on the inner light of conscience and grasping for the sword of law.

American liberalism is two-hearted as well, split between those who want to lift economic barriers to success and independence (think Hubert Humphrey) and those who yearn for asceticism and the rule of the saints (think Ralph Nader).

But liberals have no power; in 2005, conservatives have it all. And therein lies the danger to the nation -- and, ironically, to conservatism itself.

For the first time in many decades (by my count, since 1929), Republicans control all the levels of our government. With their focus and party discipline, a united GOP can now do something as consequential as revamping bankruptcy statutes -- or as self-destructive as turning one woman's hospice room into a Fox News studio.

It's not surprising that conservatives are making wrong choices. Whether or not power always corrupts, no one can deny it tempts. Like Tolkien's One Ring, power whispers to dark places in the soul, urging us to calm our own deep fears by using force, or the threat of force, on others. Authoritarianism arises in those seductive whispers.

War and the unseen enemy

Authoritarianism as a political concept dates from 1950, when the German philosopher T.W. Adorno and a group of colleagues advanced the idea that there is an authoritarian personality. Because of childhood experiences, such as a distant, rigid father and a smothering mother, Adorno's authoritarians were conformist, submissive, fearful and irrational -- easy prey for a Hitler or a Stalin.

Adorno's mistake was imagining that individuals can be essentially all one thing or all another. That's bosh; in each of us, all the time, the will for freedom clashes with the wish to obey.

Events in our lives, or the world around us, bring one aspect or the other to the fore. And no event does more to cow the human soul than war. If the enemy is unseen and undetectable, we feel terror: terror of weakness, terror of disorder, terror of the evildoer, the heretic, the infidel, the demonic Other plotting in the darkness.

In wartime the sleep of reason brings us the most destructive monsters: loyalty oaths, secret tribunals, government lying and spying, censorship and intimidation of media, sexual repression by law and concentration camps for the "enemy" -- or even for our own people.

In that sense, the Schiavo family was a casualty of war. A movement that has the power to enforce its will on others sometimes is afraid not to. Self-restraint seems like self-doubt. To tolerate nonconformity feels weak; and inner weakness is frightening.

"If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, "you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

The Framers of our Constitution understood human nature. They decided to allow one part of government to check another, not out of virtue but out of self-interest. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," James Madison wrote in "The Federalist," meaning that Congress or the courts or even state governments must be able to resist the will of the executive, and vice-versa.

When all parts of our system lie at the feet of one party, and one small faction (even, it seems today, one family), Madisonian obstacles are swept away and liberty may be sadly damaged.

Genie of power will disappear

If there is hope in this troubling time, it lies in American history. Since the beginning, Americans have not taken kindly to would-be bosses -- or least, not very kindly and not for very long. A Joe McCarthy, a George Wallace, a Newt Gingrich may rise.

But for each one, there comes a time when the magic words -- "war," "enemy," "morality," "treason" -- cease to work, and the genie of power disappears back into the bottle of restraint.

That may be happening now, as the Republican majority loses the momentum it gained from its November victory. Or perhaps the authoritarian moment -- what Jefferson, in a similar dark time, once called "the reign of witches" -- will persist a little longer.

Even so, Bush and DeLay would do well to heed the ghostly voices of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Those voices warn that the backlash may come sooner or later -- but in America, it always comes. When it does, the GOP will return to its roots, which Danforth identified as limited government, free trade, judicial restraint and internationalism.

And no longer will private citizens go to bed afraid of waking to find Bill O'Reilly by their bedside. Hang on, conservatives. History is coming to -- well -- liberate you.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,058 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 05:32 pm
Ah - I am in the middle of a fabulous article in The New Republic on exactly the same thing!

I wonder if I can excerpt a bit? Hmmm.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 06:14 pm
I'd be interested enough to go pick up a copy, dlowan. Is it the April issue?

I'm fascinated that the only person who has responded is an Austrailian!

To me, this is the most interesting sentence in the essay:

Quote:
One heart proclaims "government must not make me live like others;" the other insists "government should make others live like me."


That really seems to be the essence of America these days.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 06:54 pm
I think many people are tired of the issue. Personally I think it is a screen to avert attention from something even more insidious. The destruction of the minimal social safety net and control of wealth that was put in place in the 1930's and a return to the raw capitalism, plutocratic government and unrestrained imperialism of the 1890's.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:15 pm
Acquiunk
That has been my contention for a long long time. Even the Democratic party has been sucked into it - The liberals just may not yet know it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:56 pm
It's an interesting article. It talks about part of what I have hoped would happen since the election. Too many people were being promised different things by Bush -- once he was in a position to deliver on his promises, it was inevitable that some people would find they were being lied to. And I've been wondering what they would do when they discovered that.

I think it's part of the nature of the two-party system. One party is in power and the other party wants to do whatever is necessary to get back in power. Because this shared desire is so strong, lots of differences are temporarily ignored/ smoothed over. But then once the party IS in power, and in a position to take action, the differences are highlighted. And then the other party has an opening, and into the breach...

Thing is, the other party has to be have an at least somewhat viable candidate, hope the Dems can come up with one. That's in terms of presidential candidates, still hoping the midterm elections will shake things up a bit.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 02:46 am
boomerang, quoting a newspaper article, wrote:
It's not surprising that conservatives are making wrong choices. Whether or not power always corrupts, no one can deny it tempts. Like Tolkien's One Ring, power whispers to dark places in the soul, urging us to calm our own deep fears by using force, or the threat of force, on others. Authoritarianism arises in those seductive whispers.

To a large degree, I suspect that the "seductive whispers" of authoritarianism are a side effect of the democratic system itself. In a democracy, unlike in a monarchy, you never become a political leader unless you want to. Consequently, the process selects for people who believe in some cause, in the name of which they can boss around everybody else. It doesn't make a difference if that cause is their view of social solidarity or their vision of religious righteousness. The difference is that those who truly believe in leaving people alone, by definition, don't have a strong enough motive for political activism, so never run anything worth running in government. It appears to me that a major political party who believes in small government cannot be stable in the long run, at least not in a democracy.

I guess that's why so many people of my political persuasion were monarchists in the 19th century. In a monarchy, people become rulers because they have to, not because they want to. Arguably this tends to lead to less bossy rulers. I used to think this argument absurd when I first ran into it. I'm still far from persuaded, but it looks a lot less absurd on reflection. Come to think of it: I even believe Douglas Adams has a variation of this theme somewhere in his Hitchhiker's Guide. If I remember correctly, his ruler of the world is a total eccentric who never would do anything as normal as using his power to advance a cause. One protagonist argues this is exactly what makes him a good choice for ruler of the world. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a visionary book indeed, and George W. Bush is the best world leader to illustrate the point.
0 Replies
 
watchmakers guidedog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 05:22 am
Thomas wrote:
I guess that's why so many people of my political persusasion were monarchists in the 19th century. In a monarchy, people become rulers because they have to, not because they want to. Arguably this tends to lead to less bossy rulers.


I agree completely... though I personally think that an inheritable oligarchy would be more effective. Diffusion of power and all that.

Quote:
If I remember correctly, his ruler of the world is a total eccentric who never would do anything as normal as using his power to advance a cause.


Ruler of the universe... plus he doesn't even know that he is. All he knows is that every day people bring him these interesting philosophical societal engineering puzzles to work on.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:07 am
watchmakers guidedog wrote:
Ruler of the universe... plus he doesn't even know that he is. All he knows is that every day people bring him these interesting philosophical societal engineering puzzles to work on.

Thanks for the refresher, watchmakers guidedog! I'm beginning to remember more clearly. I think I want to read up the section when I come home from work. Do you happen to remember which part this was in? I'm guessing first or second book, but don't remember which.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:21 am
Do you mean Slartibartfast?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/slartibartfast.shtml
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:23 am
(The mind of a h2g2 fan -- typed "flartibartgast" into Google, nothing, typed "norway fjords galaxy", a-ha:

Quote:
Fjords in literature and popular culture
Slartibartfast, a character in
Douglas Adams's
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is noted for having crafted the fjords in
Norway.


http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/F/Fj/Fjord.htm )
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:33 am
Wasn't Slarti the Norwegian fjord guy? I'd really have to read it up, but I'm pretty sure the ruler of the universe was someone else. It's a shame, I really should be more firm in the classics.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:42 am
I think this is the guy I meant. He doesn't play as much of a role in the novel as Slartibartfast does. (Not Zaphod Beeblebrox -- the one with the cat mentioned under point 2.)

Quote:
(The mind of a h2g2 fan -- typed "flartibartgast" into Google, nothing, typed "norway fjords galaxy", a-ha:

Smile
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 06:47 am
Ah, yes, I know who you mean now.

Gotta re-read. Pleasant idea.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 10:22 am
I hope both parties put forth someone worth considering!

I'm typically pretty moderate politically. I'm registered as a democrat but I'm unafraid to cross party lines.

At least I used to be unafraid.

Most of the republicans I know are pretty moderate too and I think that this editorial presents their thinking very well.

Along the same lines, many of the devout Christians I know are getting a bit wigged out about the intrusion of faith into politics, and of politics into faith.

I've seen some of the backlash the author talks about.

The point that Thomas makes about the people who believe in small government not being the sort to force their will on others is very good food for thought.

Most politics is nothing but a screaming match these days. I was reading my today's paper about "Justice Sunday: Stopping the Fillibuster Against People of Faith" and I'm thinking: There is no way to outscream these people.

I remember the dread before the 2000 election of how the Supreme Court would jump out of their seats so Bush could appoint new conservatives.

No one has jumped yet.

With the current attacks on judges does anyone think they will start jumping out?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 10:48 am
Boomerang, hate to disrupt the thread a little more, but:

Anyone remember the part about the super-genius who had been locked away by his society in order to produce weapons to win a war, and instead invents:

A. Flies that know how to fly out of the open half of a window

and

B. An off-switch for Children

And everyone on both sides of the conflict are so amazed that the war ends.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 11:11 am
The Republicans...and the conservatives...served this country best by being the loyal opposition.

Now, the Peter Principle has taken hold of them.

Too bad for them!

Too, too bad forl us.

We have to hope that the pendulum swing back to sanity happens before too much more destruction.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 11:12 am
New thought:

The "liberals" never ever were in charge.

Unfortunately, the "conservatives" actually are.

Goddess got that ass backwards.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 11:16 am
Nice to see ya again FA

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 11:18 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
We have to hope that the pendulum swing back to sanity happens before too much more destruction.

Nice to see you, Frank! Based on this hope of yours, I expect you to start believing in immaculate conception any day now Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The genie of power and the bottle of restraint.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 12:14:35