Excerpted from a mid-length essay noted at PowerLine:
...At the same time, the authors of The Federalist faced the assumption that any people who were to govern themselves must be relatively homogenous in terms of their manners, habits, and customs. A republic, it was said, is not only a set of institutions, but an ethos — a shared way of life thought possible only among people with common moral habits and dispositions. Large states produce luxury, a term that for much of the 18th century was synonymous with corruption. Only small states were likely to produce a society where there were no extremes of wealth, influence, or education, and so to produce the kind of moderation (some would call it "mediocrity") necessary for a simple, sturdy, and virtuous people....
Well, that shoots "Diversity is Our Strength" down in flames, no?
And that "luxury/corruption" nexus........my, my, my.
What to do? What to do?
...In place of soul-swelling visions of justice and the common good, philosophers like Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas Hobbes, and the authors of The Federalist came up with the modern idea of government as establishing the conditions of political legitimacy by securing agreement on the rules of the game. Government, as they understood it, would withdraw from the higher-order tasks of forming character and educating citizens, and instead confine itself to the "low but solid" task, as Leo Strauss put it, of protecting persons and property. Henceforth, moral and religious beliefs would no longer be regarded as concerns of the state; they would be left to the private discretion of individuals. Government would no longer aim at eliminating the causes of moral conflict, but on managing it. It would be less interested in fostering the virtue of political leaders than in restraining the arbitrary use of power....
Maybe that worked in theory, but it's now excruciatingly obvious that 'restraining the arbitrary use of power' within the luxurious state--with its concomitant corruption--doesn't work. Could that be because 'fostering the virtue of political leaders' is secondary? Or perhaps because 'fostering virtue' in the entire enterprise is no longer a value?
It would seem that Madison preferred to gamble on 'property' as the foundation.
...Accordingly, the protection of rights — especially property rights — would be given pride of place in the new commercial republic. It would not be the virtuous republic imagined by the ancients or some of the Anti-Federalists — Samuel Adams, still an heir to his Puritan forebears, said that America would be a "Christian Sparta"; instead, it would foster a less noble yet more enlightened form of character based on the diverse interests that constitute society.
An interest-based society, Madison argued, would have a generally tranquilizing effect on these passions. It was intended to offer an alternative to the dominance of certain passions associated with fame, honor, glory, and heroic immortality. A society dominated by the pursuit of interest could be counted on to be less noble and courageous, but also more prosperous and secure. It would emphasize such virtues as deliberation, moderation, fair dealing, and compromise. It would be competitive yet peaceful, seeking something less grand but more lasting. This peaceful competition between groups would form the basis of what would later be called "interest-group liberalism."..
.Exactly what the Trust-Busters had to demolish. And by all appearances, a new Trust-Busting (mutatis mutandis) will have to occur, putting Ike's military-industrial complex in its place.
But the far greater challenge will be to demolish the Deep State; its instinct for self-preservation at any cost is, perhaps, THE problem faced by this country. Why? Because that 'virtue' stuff was made secondary to 'interests'.
The Straussians thought that the natural moral law would suffice to restrain 'interests.' It does not, at least not very well, but corrections can be made.
But it appears that the Straussians never thought of restraining an entity such as the Deep State.
It's time that their assumptions are reviewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment