Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
Thanks, Conor, for your reply to my latest on liberty vs. tyranny. This seems like the crux of it:
Mr. Poulos spent a lot of time persuasively arguing why liberty belongs in that formulation, and no time persuading us that it ought to be pitted against tyranny. Sure, it's perfectly acceptable to make the case that political liberty is our most precious possession, and to let that insight guide our actions in the political system. The problem comes when, having decided that, your reflexive assumption is suddenly that all your political adversaries are on the side of tyranny. Someone can conclude, as many conservatives have done, that political liberty is one precious possession, but that we cannot value it exclusively. There were French revolutionaries who saw liberty as their most precious possession. Would it have been "almost completely useless" for them to tell Edmund Burke, "We are for liberty, and you for tyranny?" I report, you decide.
It makes no more sense to cast modern American liberals as operating on the side of tyranny. They value liberty far more highly than most people in the history of humanity, but assert that some checks on liberty are permissible because equality or justice are important too.
You go on to suggest that with health care, for example, "liberty vs. equality" might be a better frame. And it's a pretty good one -- just ask Tocqueville. Meaning, read Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Part 2, Chapter 1, "Why Democratic Nations Show a More Ardent and Enduring Love for Equality Than for Liberty." Underline this:
Nobody is so limited and superficial as not to realize that political liberty can, if carried to excess, endanger the peace, property, and lives of individuals. But only perceptive and clearsighted men see the dangers with which equality threatens us, and they generally avoid pointing them out. They see that the troubles they fear are distant and console themselves that they will only fall on future generations, for which the present generation hardly cares. The ills which liberty brings may be immediate; all can see them and all, more or less, feel them. The ills produced by extreme equality only become apparent little by little; they gradually insinuate themselves into the body social; they are only occasionally noticed, and when they do become most excessive, habit has already made them pass unfelt.
And double-underline this:
I think democratic peoples have a natural taste for liberty; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and be sad if it is taken from them. But their passion for equality is ardent, insatiable, eternal, and invincible. They want equality in freedom, and if they cannot have that, they still want equality in slavery. They will put up with poverty, servitude, and barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy.
When people to the right of center pit their freedom-loving selves against 'the elites', meaning 'the political class', two things are going on. First, they are partaking of America's long anti-aristocratic tradition, arguing in favor of political equality and against the concentration of private power in a social, economic, and political clique. But, second, they are also partaking of a Tocquevillian critique of the excesses of the love of equality -- a love which views the political equality of free citizens as inadequate to the task of ensuring the blessings of true or full equality.
That these two things are going on at the same time makes for a certain amount of confusion (and some bogus charges of hypocrisy to boot). We need to note both very clearly, however. Taken together, they show that the right of center is inclined against the simplistic view that equality is bad and liberty is good -- but that the right of center is inclined toward the more subtle view that the love of equality that sets in during democratic times is more pernicious and dangerous than the appreciation of liberty that persists: pernicious, because it lowers our ambitions and expectations about ourselves, preparing our souls or psyches to accept a growing and deepening condition of servitude; and dangerous, because the only way in which a democratic society can repose in servitude without offending its sense of equality is by handing itself over to the unitary rule of the state.
What this means is threefold. First, it isn't accurate to describe the right-of-center frame as liberty vs. equality, although the right of center is animated by a recognition that, in a democratic society, the love of equality puts people in a frame of mind that leaves them apt to surrender their liberty.
Second, the shortcoming of liberty vs. tyranny as an overarching frame for the right is that it compares apples to oranges in a certain respect. The apples to apples comparison is liberty vs. servitude. But as we have discovered, elite political classes -- even (I'm looking at you, Communists) in the most pathologically equality-minded regimes in history -- have this stubborn habit of ensuring that they experience just a little less servitude than the demos that they rule. As Plato recognized, even though the tyrant can rule with absolute power, technically he is the most servile person of all, slave to base appetites that he is. But nowadays, our love of equality makes us soft on base appetites at the same time that it makes us feel like the elite rule of a political class is a lot different from the rule of a Caesar or a Napoleon. In certain respects, it is. But rather than the danger of life under a single tyrannical master, we face the danger of life under a single, tyrannical government -- concentrated in power, unchecked in size, ubiquitous in scope.
Third, the reason that this is so is that we (small-d) democrats, as a whole, are strongly inclined to love equality way more than we like liberty. We have to work at liking true or full liberty -- reminding ourselves regularly of why it's so great, and disciplining ourselves to remain in the habit of exercising it. Obviously the kind of liberty that we're most inclined to let go of is political liberty. It takes vigilance, it takes time, and it takes a cultivated imperviousness to the temptations of entitlements and material pleasures. In a democratic society, those things are all scarce resources. The pressures of everyday life in a democratic society make us worry that political liberty is more of an impediment to the good life than a shortcut to the good life. (And we all want to find that shortcut and take it as fast as possible.)
The frame of liberty vs. tyranny has more punch, and gets more traction, than the frame of liberty vs. servitude might, even though the latter is the more accurate from a philosophical standpoint. From a political standpoint, the conflict between our moderate appreciation for liberty and our immoderate love of equality -- both of which are characteristically small-d democratic -- matters because it leads us in two different directions. The choice was clear to Tocqueville himself, way back in 1840: equality in freedom, or equality in servitude? Tocqueville recognized that democracy in America made the rule of a single master less and less likely, so he was less worried about the hard tyranny of a Napoleon than what he famously called the "soft despotism" of...well, exactly the sort of government that people to the right of center are typically united in opposing. 'Despotism' isn't a terribly American word choice -- the Motto of the State of Virginia is Sic Semper Tyrannis, and Franklin's suggestion for the Motto on the reverse of the Great Seal is Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.
Liberty vs. tyranny it is.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
And double-underline this:
I think democratic peoples have a natural taste for liberty; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and be sad if it is taken from them. But their passion for equality is ardent, insatiable, eternal, and invincible. They want equality in freedom, and if they cannot have that, they still want equality in slavery. They will put up with poverty, servitude, and barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy.
I disagree. What people want is not equality, but the absence of humiliation.
It is true that some benighted folks just cannot stand the thought that anyone's economic circumstances are better than theirs.
But most people understand the evil of envy and shun it.
When a shiny red Ferrari blasts past my humble vehicle, I don't fantasize hauling the driver to the guillotine in a tumbrel. I just think, "Nice car! Good for him."
May '10
Re: Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
James, that is some SERIOUSLY well written and fascinating philosophy (man I love this Ricochet thing). It sounds like you have really immersed yourself in the writings of Tocqueville, to the point of almost channelling him, if I may be so metaphysical.
This whole internet thing ain't so bad after all.
May '10
Re: Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
"Liberty vs. equality" can be distilled into one simple question: which can government actually provide?
If we tilt every consideration towards liberty, the Constitution resolves all the biggest issues. But, if we decide that equality is government's primary purpose... we end up with something like Obamacare.
Even assuming that every bureaucrat at every juncture makes only decisions which contribute to equality, the fact that we can't afford universal health care suggests that America might want to stick with liberty -- unless we'd really like to see the meaning of "equality in servitude." Bring political hacks, insurance companies, unions, and the pharmaceutical industry into the mix, and government-mandated equality becomes even more of a pipe dream.
Aug '10
Re: Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
Equality cannot be defined by human, bureaucratic observers. We can marvel at, and graciously appreciate, the achievement that occurs because of what we cannot imagine in ourselves. If I express a talent and another is promoted only by regulatory artifice because of irrelevant traits, such as being female, black, American Indian, Mexican, or a trendy "gay," ...then has equality been achieved? Whenever a cultural aggressor claims to be on the side of equality, you can be rather certain that they are not. How is equality measured when, in fact, the whole game of life is precisely about distinguishing (even surprising) oneself, despite disadvantages? Heroism is needed, and every person has it within his grasp. D--- it! I appreciate the support of friends, but not unsolicited, co-dependent "helpers" in flowery nurse uniforms getting weird condescending kicks out of carrying me onto the field of battle. I will beat the odds--if at all--in a distinguished manner. The dull eye of monolithic organizations and government can only stifle.
May '10
Re: Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
"Equality" is a tricky word, with several meanings in this context. 'Elites" are not really a problem as such. Certainly men like Washington and Jefferson were "elites" in several obvious ways, and both Roosevelts came from a privileged background, but all were committed to equality before the law and equality in making the law. Americans loved all of them despite their exceptional wealth and education.
But an attempt to gain political privilege, as Tocqueville suggests, is a different matter. Trying to dictate the law or favor a group in the law, even with good intentions, is to establish an unequal political playing field. Trying to create economic equality, through political inequality can be described as tyranny.
May '10
Re: Liberty vs. Tyranny: The Choice
Jason Hart "Liberty vs. equality" can be distilled into one simple question: which can government actually provide?
I thought you were going in a different direction. I would say, in point of fact, government cannot provide liberty. "... we are endowed by our Creator with .... liberty..." Government can only "provide" equality...but that only at the expense of liberty. That is, they must take from you and give to me in order to assure that I am your equal. But, in so doing, they deprive you of the liberty to use that which you have earned and they subsequently took.