Much as I enjoyed the fellowship of the past weekend in Charlottesville, there was a persistent and palpable animosity toward politics and government generally held by many of the participants. For all the talk of community, it was a community bereft of the idea that communities require more than just good feeling, but laws and institutions as well as the willingness on the part of citizens to work publically toward the formation and enactment of the public good and the recognition that such work will result in conflict. There was something of a gauzy sentimentality and even anarchic libertarianism that pervaded the sessions. As much as I admire Wendell Berry, his work does not sufficiently attend to the needs for, and demands of, politics. Indeed, I was struck by the similarity between two camps that otherwise might be thought to be polar opposites - agrarian communitarians and libertarians. Both are wildly optimistic about human nature and the ability of humans to “do their own thing” without the “interference” of politics and government. ~Prof. Patrick Deneen
I heard Prof. Deneen’s talk in Charlottesville, and I was pretty sure there was nothing really troubling in it, but I went back through it again today and made sure. Since I, anarchopaleo-retroneotradcon populist agrarian Bolingbrokean reactionary that I am, still haven’t found anything all that objectionable in it, and I didn’t notice the “gauzy sentimentality” in the attendees that Prof. Deneen noticed, I assume I am either missing something tremendously important or there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding somewhere. Yes, there was much talk about Wendell Berry, such that it became the running joke of the conference, but it was not just aimless gushing about the grand old Kentuckian; the references and citations were all, for the most part, part of the defense of rooted, limited and human-scale living.
The talk itself should have made any neo-Schumpeterian and neo-Schuhmacherian’s heart fill with joy and gladness, and the conference attendees should have reassured everyone that a room could erupt in applause at the mention of Ron Paul’s impending presidential victory and believe in and try to live rooted traditional community life at the same time and that they cheered for Ron Paul because they believed and lived in this way. (Am I just imposing my own perspective on all the attendees? I don’t know, but I don’t think so.) The people who were there despise what the political class calls “politics” because I think they understand that this “politics” has nothing good or positive to do with the immediate political communities to which they belong. They loathe “government” generally not because they think any and all government is undesirable, but because they believe this kind of government that we have today is significantly and dangerously corrupted. Prof. Deneen may find in the enthusiasm for Ron Paul an example of precisely the sort of disengagement and lack of realism about politics that he thinks is the problem, but I would suggest that any expression of enthusiasm for a presidential candidate, even an extreme long-shot such as Rep. Paul, demonstrates a strong sense of engagement and perhaps almost undue preoccupation with politics as conventionally defined.
There is a sense in which D.C. is less of a monstrosity as a city than Las Vegas or Phoenix, engaged in perpetual war with nature as those cities are, but there is also a very real sense in which those places could not thrive without the policies and priorities set in Washington. Washington is not at war with nature, but it is at war with our America, and so it is not terribly surprising that people who consider themselves patriots regard it with special loathing. For my part, in my visits to the Georgetown campus and the rest of the metro area, I have found some things to enjoy in the District and its environs, but on the whole I take Kekaumenos’ advice about going to the capital: don’t do it unless you absolutely have to, and leave as quickly as possible.
Were there libertarians at the conference who had an unfortunately optimistic view of human nature? Probably. Did they make up the bulk of the speakers and attendees? I am doubtful about that. Are there some romantics who pine for settled communities simply because they like to have things to pine for? Probably. But that is not what anyone I met was talking about. Maybe I didn’t meet enough of the people at the conference. I would like to suggest, however, that the hostility to politics and government (which I suppose can hardly satisfy a professor of government) that Prof. Deneen encountered there was very far from a desire to live in a world beyond politics. The ISI folks, as I understand them, view attempts to escape the inevitable realities of politics as fairly insane. As Chantal Delsol’s book would have it, it is the attempt to eliminate the structures of power (among other things) all together that constitutes one of the grave mistakes of modern Western man. The existence of power and the existence of disparities of power will be constants in human experience, and so there is the ultimate choice of attempting to constrain and limit the corruption that comes from concentrated power (according to the finest Anglo-American traditions of Bolingbroke, the Country party, the Anti-Federalists, who are the very same people who embody what Prof. Deneen calls the alternative tradition) or acquiescing to various degrees in the monstrosity of the Robinarchy on the grounds that there has to be a government somewhere. To be against the Robinarchy does not mean that you reject authority or government, much less that you have an optimistic assessment of human nature, but that you would like to see government rightly ordered according to principles of legitimacy, lawfulness and justice.
Over the past year it has been interesting to see reactions to the conservatism of virtue and place (this seems to be the most succinct name for what we are trying to describe) that has been on display at different points. When traditional conservatism was advanced during the debates over “crunchy conservatism,” all of the talk of virtue and the criticism of megacorporations immediately aroused the suspicions of the enforcers of acceptable fusionism that some sort of lefty statist coup was in the works. Citing John Lukacs saying negative things about paving over green fields was taken as proof that we wanted to collectivise the farms, or something like that. Libertarian terror at the prospect of actually living your life in accordance with nature was palpable. It was the foes of the traditionalists, paleos and “crunchy cons” who wanted to talk about a “partial philosophy of life” and who advanced the idea that politics somehow stops at the voting booth and the government office. The anarcho-traditionalists, if we want to call them that, were the ones saying that political life is first and foremost concerned with the affairs of the institutions of your local political community and the needs of your family, and these are what ought to take priority. They were proposing practicing politics as if the Permanent Things (i.e., virtues, among other things) really existed and actually mattered, and you could see the unmitigated horror this induced in every “mainstream conservative.”
There was an equally harsh reaction in the other direction when the exact same people begin speaking favourably about “front-porch anarchism” and Wendell Berry and Dorothy Day in a slightly different context. All of a sudden the same people who were a few months earlier supposedly attempting to regulate every aspect of your daily life with supposedly fascist dreams of transcendence were dangerously oblivious to the need for order and stability! This would be the “gauzy sentimentality” objection Prof. Deneen voiced earlier. However, I think I can explain how people keep having this mistaken impression.
The “front-porch anarchist” folks were talking about ”anarchism” with the understanding that this means a rejection of consolidation, concentration and centralisation, a repudiation of war, the extraction of wealth by the state and the exploitation of the land and the people by corporate masters together with a rejection of the trashy culture, the degradation of the human person and the general ugliness of the age. It is difficult to discern this at first, because the label anarchist is immediately off-putting to most conservatives (as it should be in its normal meaning of bomb-throwing assassins), but what needs to be understood is that these “front-porch anarchists” are irrevocably opposed to the kind of anarchist who believes that destruction is creative, since they are adamantly opposed to the kind of “creative destruction” that requires the destruction of all they love to create the bland, homogenous, dead world that they hate. From everything I heard in Prof. Deneen’s talk, it seems to me that he and they are in more or less perfect agreement. What have I missed that I think this?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Russell Arben Fox
Well Daniel, obviously I wasnt’t there–and moreover you’ve probably seen my post on William Jennings Bryan by now, and the paper it’s based on, so you probably can tell where I’m coming from. But let me try to advance an additional argument anyway.
You make a good point that “politics” is broader than the iron-clad, centralized options handed down to us by the two dominant parties; that any kind of enthusiasm and engagement for a political candidate or movement, even a crazy longshot one, is in the proper Arendtian sense a sign of taking seriously one’s local, communal, free public life. However, when you stylize that kind of political engagement as primarily being a matter of making “the ultimate choice [between] attempting to constrain and limit the corruption that comes from concentrated power …or acquiescing to various degrees in the monstrosity of the Robinarchy on the grounds that there has to be a government somewhere,” you go too far; you have now said that “politics,” at least insofar as it has anything to do with “principles of legitimacy, lawfulness and justice,” can’t really have anything to do with a defense of the Robinarchy. Which kind of assumes that there is no possible legitimate political principle–which, I agree, needs to be a matter of tending to one’s community and freedom–that could have been pursued by defenders of the Robinarchy, however careful or tentative their defenses may have been. And this, Daniel, is what Patrick (and I) consider possibly kind of sentimental–were local public goods and freedoms truly being secured for all by the Anti-Federalists? Was there no legitimacy whatsoever to the Federalists’ or to Lincoln’s (or to WJB’s or FDR’s) conviction that securing those goods and making them equally available was going to require, well, trade-offs? In other words, that maybe the Robinarchy isn’t just the default governmental creation of a world that had abandoned local places, but was perhaps, just a little bit, a sincere effort to secure those places, maybe even extend them to poor or oppressed groups who had lacked them in the past, by retranslating their social and economic into and through a changing world?
None of this, of course, is to suggest that the story is over and that the Federalists and Lincoln and WJB and FDR were right all along; there is much to attack there. But there does, sometimes, seem to be a willingness to take anarchism to believe that these goods and freedoms really can be maintained spontaneously. Fallen man suggests otherwise: that while we must, of course, struggle against the evil in the hearts of man to use government against each other, we must similarly recognize that without a government capable to responding to broad social, economic, and cultural changes, then these goods will be lost, or at least never be made available to any outside a lucky few.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Leonard
As a collection of buildings, roads, parks, etc., Washington is a perfectly lovely city. A stunted backwater for 150 years, air conditioning has allowed it to flower, but it also blooms because of the endless stream of taxed wealth that is directed there.
That latter bit is, I think, what people were responding to.
On anarchism, I am a bit perplexed by your idea that your brand of anarchist is fundamentally opposed to other anarchists on the basis of what they predict anarchy would produce. Anarchy is a system characterized the lack of the state. What happens then is certainly the object of speculation; but I don’t think anyone thinks that will make magically do away with the “creative destruction” of the market. Anyone who’s not an (idiot) left-anarchist, anyway. There should certainly be room in anarchy for all sorts of lifestyles, including back-to-the-land crunchy agrarianism. But that will hardly be the all of it.
Do you want libertarian anarchists as allies or not? And how would you oppose them, other than by demanding a state?
I don’t see anarchy as fundamentally changing the human psyche, and that’s the basis of the demand for cheap modern crap culture. Ugliness has always existed. I do think anarchy might eventually allow for splintering of culture much more than now, so that both high and low culture coexist peacefully.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Daniel Larison
Prof. Fox, you wrote: “Which kind of assumes that there is no possible legitimate political principle–which, I agree, needs to be a matter of tending to one’s community and freedom–that could have been pursued by defenders of the Robinarchy, however careful or tentative their defenses may have been. And this, Daniel, is what Patrick (and I) consider possibly kind of sentimental–were local public goods and freedoms truly being secured for all by the Anti-Federalists?”
Were the Anti-Federalists securing (or trying to secure) local public goods and freedoms “for all”? Absolutely. Insofar as they were opposing the usurpation of the Federalists of powers that they believed should not be vested in so few hands in a central state apparatus, they were the only ones in the debate trying to secure *local* public goods and freedoms for all, both Anti-Federalist and Federalist alike. The Federalists were not necessarily maliciously intent on destroying those things (I have some respect for the Federalists, and I am distantly related to some of them), but the effect of their plans was and has been to undermine and eventually destroy them bit by bit. I use Robinarchy here as a shorthand for excessive concentrated state power. In my view, no one can give a tentative or cautious defense of it anymore than one can give a tentative or cautious defense of tyranny. Perhaps on this point we are speaking about two different things.
Though Patrick Henry was fighting first and foremost for the liberty and rights of Virginians, and Elbridge Gerry was fighting for the rights of Massachusettsians in their opposition to the Constitution, the effect of their resistance was to better protect *all* localities and states from excessive concentration of power. The defenders of Notting Hill are helping the people of Baywater even if the Baywater folks don’t appreciate it. The Anti-Federalists were trying to teach the centralisers their understanding of patriotism, but unfortunately it didn’t take.
Had the Federalists had their way entirely, the Virginia Plan would have gone through and there would have been even greater centralisation and supremacy of the large states from the outset. To the extent that the Antis succeeded in anything in their resistance to the Constitution, they succeeded in making the Constitution a relatively better political settlement than it would have otherwise been (even though it was still too centralist in the end). Had they won the debate outright, American history might well have been the story of a confederation of numerous small republics crisscrossing the continent rather than a continental and then overseas empire. Maybe it would have degenerated into a series of internecine conflicts. That’s always a possibility, but that’s the chance that people should be able to take if they are, in fact, free and self-governing people in any sense.
You then wrote: “Was there no legitimacy whatsoever to the Federalists’ or to Lincoln’s (or to WJB’s or FDR’s) conviction that securing those goods and making them equally available was going to require, well, trade-offs? In other words, that maybe the Robinarchy isn’t just the default governmental creation of a world that had abandoned local places, but was perhaps, just a little bit, a sincere effort to secure those places, maybe even extend them to poor or oppressed groups who had lacked them in the past, by retranslating their social and economic into and through a changing world?”
No one denies that attempting to make anything “equally available” will require trade-offs, because we all know the enforcement of equality requires coercion and the more things the state attempts to provide or guarantee equally the greater its need for a coercive apparatus to make that happen. Those of us who insist that the trade-offs are always unfair and unbalanced *for almost everyone* involved do not regard it as a redeeming feature of the work of the Federalists or Red Republicans that they were destroying existing political or constitutional arrangements for a “good cause,” be it national unity, emancipation or what-have-you. Those who tend to benefit from making these “trade-offs” are the would-be reformers themselves, who always seem convinced that the best way for them to help bring justice to their fellow man is to get themselves more power (because they have to have to power to overcome all those “obstacles” of local and state resistance to their grand scheme). (It isn’t entirely fair to lump Bryan in with this crowd, since he doesn’t really share their view of things.) This is why liberty and equality are always antagonistic principles, and why egalitarian aspirations always go hand in hand with intrusions upon and destructions of local privileges and rights. Also, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned, egalitarian aspirations do not usually make men any more equal except as subjects of concentrated power, which is hardly a desirable state for anyone.
You then wrote: “But there does, sometimes, seem to be a willingness to take anarchism to believe that these goods and freedoms really can be maintained spontaneously.”
There are some people who were at the conference who might say favourable things about “spontaenous order” and the like, but I’m not one of them. I don’t know very many people who move in these circles who think that the goods of a local community and freedoms can be maintained spontaneously. They have to be reproduced and fought for every day, and they don’t just keep popping up out of the ground without constant cultivation. Perhaps I need to meet more of these people before I make declarations about what all of them believe, but if they think about these things as I do they think that the maintenance of these goods and freedoms is precisely the work that they and their neighbours are supposed to be doing. It is, in fact, their duty to do this work, and they wrongly abdicate that responsibility if they start pushing it off onto formal institutions in a farflung capital.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Russell Arben Fox
Daniel,
“I use Robinarchy here as a shorthand for excessive concentrated state power. In my view, no one can give a tentative or cautious defense of it anymore than one can give a tentative or cautious defense of tyranny. Perhaps on this point we are speaking about two different things.”
We may be. I referred the “Robinarchy” in my comment partly out of contrariness, but partly also to make the point that what really matters in your definition of it is what you label here “excessive concentrated state power.” Easily defined in principle; not necessarily so easily done in practice. One of things I have long admired about your writings and those of other conservatives who share your perspective is how you do not blanche, as most of us Americans are I guess supposed to do so instinctively, at any mention of “authority.” On the contrary, you have always written with what I consider to be admirable clarity about the importance of cultural, moral and social authority in a decent polity. Well, surely you would agree that such authority must be funded, must have some set of procedures for expressing its will in the face of scofflaws, etc. If so, then are at the point where I am not sure why we should be confident that the “Robinarchy” wasn’t, in fact, at least in principle, a reasonable response to need for authority in an economically complex society. I suppose you might argue that there are very clear ways to identify how, for example, the Federalists went beyond a (legitimate?) need for national authority and on to what was in fact excessive centralization in the name of that authority, but I have to confess that to my mind, even Alexander Hamilton’s most extreme dreams for the national government are still categorically distinct from anything that could be properly called “tyranny.”
“Those of us who insist that the trade-offs are always unfair and unbalanced for almost everyone involved do not regard it as a redeeming feature of the work of the Federalists or Red Republicans that they were destroying existing political or constitutional arrangements for a ‘good cause,’ be it national unity, emancipation or what-have-you. Those who tend to benefit from making these ‘trade-offs’ are the would-be reformers themselves, who always seem convinced that the best way for them to help bring justice to their fellow man is to get themselves more power.”
Well, this is probably a bottom-line disagreement between us; I am moved enough by the (I know in some ways necessarily chimerical, but for me undeniable nonetheless) appeal of equality–an appeal that I think well-grounded in scripture as well as philosophy–to think that a few trade-offs will inevitably trump the virtues inscribed in “existing political and constitutional arrangements.” Not many trade-offs–in fact, I would say quite few. But there definitely are some, such as ending a humanitarian and moral disaster like slavery, for example. (Not that such puts to rest any questions about methods or prudence; I’ve learned my lesson from the Iraq war that satisfying one particular theoretical/moral model does not equal wholescale justification.) That certain elites are necessarily going to benefit from the destruction of existing arrangements does not, in itself, constitute a conclusive argument, since I think it obvious that other elites dominated previous arrangements, so it’s not as though we’re talking about the fall of Adam here. (Again–and I apologize for all the annoying qualifications; it’s just the way I think–not that such is a stand-alone excuse either; clearly, one can and should make arguments for the superiority of one set of elites over another, and maybe such arguments will be conclusive. But if the concern over the centralization of advantage alone is always reason to question action, neither is it I think necessarily enough to always condemn it.)
“(It isn’t entirely fair to lump Bryan in with this crowd, since he doesn’t really share their view of things.)”
Yes and no. It’s absolutely true that he wasn’t interested, as the Federalists and Lincoln and, to a degree, FDR were in altering the constitutional order for the sake of creating a new set of provisions and/or powers. But, as much research as he has done, I just disagree with people like Jeff Taylor that see Bryan as an opponent of centralization. He wanted the government to publicly own the railroads, for heavens sake. In the name of economic equality and popular control, he pushed to expand federal power within its existing parameters, making the democratic links between individual citizens and Washington DC that much stronger (he was a strong proponent of the direct election of senators as well). Part of the tryannical Robinarchy? Or, just trying to take governing and economic authority as it was being constituted in an emerging nationalized industrial economy out of the hands of one set of actors (the trusts) and put it into another (the farmers and their elected representatives)? Maybe a little bit of both.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Daniel Larison
Sorry to take a little while to get back to this one. Once it fell off the main page, I had to track it down.
Prof. Fox, you wrote: “On the contrary, you have always written with what I consider to be admirable clarity about the importance of cultural, moral and social authority in a decent polity. Well, surely you would agree that such authority must be funded, must have some set of procedures for expressing its will in the face of scofflaws, etc. If so, then are at the point where I am not sure why we should be confident that the “Robinarchy” wasn’t, in fact, at least in principle, a reasonable response to need for authority in an economically complex society. I suppose you might argue that there are very clear ways to identify how, for example, the Federalists went beyond a (legitimate?) need for national authority and on to what was in fact excessive centralization in the name of that authority, but I have to confess that to my mind, even Alexander Hamilton’s most extreme dreams for the national government are still categorically distinct from anything that could be properly called “tyranny.” ”
I don’t think we’re really all that far apart in basic assumptions. There does need to be public authority, it does need to be funded through some kind of tax revenue, and it should have mechanisms for enforcement of the laws and the resources to make that enforcement effective. No one, not even most “anarcho-traditionalists” outside of the Lew Rockwell school, opposes such public authority or rejects the necessity of government.
Three things the Federalists got wrong was 1) the kind of tasks envisioned as proper for government, 2) what the Constitution authorised the federal government to do and 3) the size of the general republic that the federal government would try to govern. One of the most prescient arguments against binding the states more closely together under the Constitution was that no republic so large could remain free of the corruption of concentrated power. By the standards of the Country tradition in which they were operating, they seem to have been entirely vindicated in their warnings against large republics, which is a longstanding element of both Aristotelian political philosophy and later Renaissance republicanism. To take the hard-core strict constructionist, Jeffersonian, and Country view, the usurpation of the Hamiltonians was first and foremost the Bank. First, to authorise it, the Federalists had to pretend (and I do mean pretend) that the Constitution could be interpreted through extremely broad interpretation, which leads us down the primrose path to destruction of “implied powers” and “inherent powers” that plague us even today. (Another evil of Federalist-inspired usurpation along these lines, though not Hamilton’s handiwork, was Marbury v. Madison and the invention of judicial review.) Second, by the creation of the Bank they were linking the forces of concentrated wealth and concentrated power in such a way that it immediately recalled the old Opposition arguments against Walpole and the moneyed interest. The Federalists represented the same kinds of interests and Hamilton considered it necessary to copy the British in their arrangements of finance. These two things together (broad construction, the alliance of concentrated wealth and power) represented usurpation and corruption, both of which would have appeared to anyone working in the Country tradition in the 1780s to be the beginnings of tyranny if not full-blown tyranny itself.
Bryan did appeal to the federal government on behalf of his constituents, and to the extent that he believed that the evils of the moneyed interest could be combated by using that interests’s tool (the federal government) against it he was badly mistaken. He did not embody most of the instincts of the later progressives who actively sought to grow the state; he did possess the deeply mistaken view that because the government was popular that it was somehow naturally going to work in the best interests of the people, that the functioning of representative government would prevent the increased power of government from simply being taken over once more by the very forces hostile to his constituents. He was simply wrong here, as I believe are most people who believe that the answer to the current oligopoly is more democracy, when mass democracy has only ever strengthened and shored up the mechanisms of power that the oligopoly uses to perpetuate its hold on power. It is very likely the case that there cannot be any decentralism within the present continental empire that would satisfactorily avoid this problem in the future; the continental nation-state would need to be broken up into regional or sub-regional polities (as in George Kennan’s proposal for decentralisation), to which the constituent states would belong and which those states would form voluntarily, and then decentralised from there.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:02 am
cyrus
Daniel,
Out of curiosity, could you point me to Kennan’s proposal?
Thank you