Irreconcilable visions and the decline of America 4

The proponents of centralized power require a homogeneous “people” to justify expanding government power. Such a “people” will have similar interests that only the central government can effectively identify and serve. Interests like “social justice”, “social duties”, and “social efficiency”, cannot be fulfilled by local or state governments, or by the parochial aims of civil society or the market, or by churches divided by sectarian beliefs. The federal technocrats of government agencies, more knowledgeable than the people about what they really want and need, must be given the power to trump those clashing local interests and manage polices that serve the larger “social” good – as defined not by the people in all their variety and complexity, but by federal bureaucrats and technocrats.

We quote from an excellent article by Bruce Thornton at Front Page.

In 1902 Theodore Roosevelt intervened in a strike by Pennsylvania coal miners, exceeding his Constitutional authority as president. When this was pointed out to him by Republican House whip James E. Watson, Roosevelt allegedly yelled, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

This outburst reflected the novel Progressive view of the Chief Executive. Instead of the Constitution’s limited powers focused on specific needs, such as national defense, beyond the capacity of the individual states or local governments to address, the President needed more expansive authority in order to serve the “people”.  Over 100 years later, Barack Obama has governed on the same assumption, one that undermines the Constitution’s structure of balanced powers and limited government, and puts at risk our political freedom and autonomy.

In January of this year Obama famously asserted, much less honestly than did T.R., his willingness to shed Constitutional limits: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got phone.” And he’s been true to his belief during his nearly six years in office. He has changed his own signature legislation, Obamacare, 42 times.

He has also used his “pen and phone” to change immigration laws, gun laws, labor laws, environmental policy, and many other statutes that should be the purview of the legislative branch, to which the Constitution gives the law-making power.

Other presidents, of course, have used signing statements and executive orders. But Obama has pushed this traditional prerogative far beyond the bounds that presidents in the past were usually careful to respect.

But the ideas behind this expansion of power are not peculiar to Obama, and transcend any one man. They come from the Progressive worldview that rejects the Constitution’s philosophical vision of humans as driven by conflicting “passions and interests”,  and eager to amass power in order to gratify both. The Progressives, on the contrary, believe that human nature can be improved, and that technocrats armed with new knowledge of human behavior and motivations can be entrusted with the concentrated power necessary for managing that improvement and solving the new problems created by industrialism, technology, and the other novelties of modernity.

In terms of the federal government, the key to this new vision is the executive branch, led by an activist president. Woodrow Wilson was quite explicit about these ideas. In 1890 he wrote of the need for a “leader of men” who has “such sympathetic and penetrative insight as shall enable him to discern quite unerringly the motives which move other men in the mass”.  He knows “what it is that lies waiting to be stirred in the minds and purposes of groups and masses of men”.  This sympathy is one “whose power is to command, to command by knowing its instrument”, and the leader possessing this “sympathy” cares only “for the external uses to which they [people] may be put”. 

More frightening still are Wilson’s comments further expanding on this “sympathy”.  “Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listens to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.”

Gone are the notions that free people decide their own political fate and choose representatives to serve their interests and principles, their autonomy protected by the Constitutional structure of checks and balances. Now an empowered elite presumably wiser about human nature will, like Plato’s Guardians, manipulate the people’s opinions so that they make the “right” choice. These ideas are on a continuum that at the extreme end lie Mussolini’s fascism and Lenin’s communism.

Ideas that have been recycled by Cass Sunstein – former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs  in the Obama White House – with his proposal that people must be “nudged” to do and think as he and his fellow Progressives are certain they should.

We see in Wilson’s writings another Progressive assumption still with us today: defining Americans as an abstract, collectivist “people”.  This unitary “people” rejects the Founders’ recognition of America’s great variety … that characterize the citizens of the United States. …  As John Adams wrote in 1787, the “selfish passions in the generality of men” are the “strongest”.

Knowing that this selfish inclination is rooted in a human nature … and so cannot be improved or eliminated, the Founders sought merely to balance faction against faction so that no one faction can amass enough power to threaten the freedom of all. 

Two visions irreconcilably opposed to each other: that of the Founders’ taking account of  human nature and its natural selfishness and finding the way to accommodate differences while protecting the freedom of each with rules for all; and that of the Progressive elite who would change human nature, homogenize interests, and impose their own vision on everyone, subordinating individual choice to a collective will controlled and guided by themselves.

Go back to Obama’s “pen and phone” statement and read what follows to see this same collectivist vision at work: “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.” The president assumes that in a country of some 330 million people, “the help they need” and their views on improving job creation, education, or job training are all the same, and thus one man can formulate policies that advance them, cutting out the several hundred representative of Congress, and state and local governments.

The obvious danger is one evident from the 20th century’s history of totalitarianism from the Bolsheviks to the Khmer Rouge. Elites convinced of their superior knowledge and insight into human behavior and the proper aims people should pursue, demand the coercive power to achieve these goods. But true to the Founders’ vision of a flawed human nature, power is “of an encroaching nature,” as Madison and Washington both warned. It intoxicates and corrupts those who possess it. Moreover, it requires weakening the autonomy and freedom of the people, whose various interests will contradict the “vision of the anointed”, as Thomas Sowell dubs them, who claim to know what’s best for everybody, and use their power to neutralize or eliminate those who resist this superior wisdom.

We need to recognize that for over a century this Progressive vision has revolutionized the federal government, which now has a size, scope, cost, and coercive power that would have horrified the Founders.

  • liz

    All very true, but I disagree that it “puts at risk our political freedom and autonomy”. – I think it has already destroyed it. All we have now is the illusion of freedom that has actually been dead for a long time.

  • Don L

    Excellent commentary!!! Boy, I respectfully and enjoyably envy your skills: concise, vocabulary control and spot-on points presentation. Having said that, I will still try to add something to your superb revelations:

    In order that the progressives have and do succeed is in fact because they have inculcated, through their compulsory schooling and banking/politician cabal machinations over the past 100 years, two primary lies behind which they hide their means-for-methods secret. Two lies and a secret to be exposed.

    Anyone can verify the following assertion by performing a very simple survey: Just ask if they believe the two lies and if they know the secret.

    (LIE 1) Everyone knows, UNQUESTIONABLY, that Lincoln saved the Union from evil slave owners and (LIE 2) everyone knows, UNQUESTIONABLY, that the economy is so large and complex that only experts can manage it. And, (THE SECRET) virtually no one knows what Fractional Reserve Central Banking is…even though the entire…THAT’S ENTIRE…American economic system is constructed around, managed and controlled according to this otherwise fraudulent monetary scheme.

    Why lie about Lincoln? Because he is the destroyer of the Union of States…not the savior. The primary check and balance of the US Constitution was that states were sovereign and the federal government was merely the agent of the States. Lincoln fought for more than 28 years to destroy this relationship…to centralize power and reverse the relationship of government to the people. No longer by consent of the governed but by edict of the government. This must be hidden. It is behind the phoney screen of slavery.

    Secondly, the idea that an economy must be managed is the lie. As historians lie about Lincoln, a true history of economics reveals all economic tragedies are the result of government intervention in the economy: unemployment – there is more work to be done than can be imagined…government intervenes in your ability to contract with people who want to work at agreed prices; healthcare – government regulates how many doctors/nurses/practitioners, how many hospitals and med facilities, has established insurance monopolies in every state and rigged the tort law system. But, all the failures are always blamed on capitalism…because you cannot be allowed to think for yourself…you are a number to be managed by experts.

    And, along with you are to dumb to understand economics…you are never to know what fractional reserve central banking is…because you would discover what it does…it is the source of all political corruption, the financial engine of the destruction of a free America and the cause of poverty across the world. It is the UNQUESTIONED cause of transfer of wealth from poor to rich (Politicians and their cronies) through intentional inflationary practices. It is the Federal Reserve System = the FED. Fractional banking is the practice of loaning out assets you don’t have. Legalized by politicians who benefit from this otherwise fraud…every bank in the FED is bankrupt by definition and the FDIC is a lie. You bet this is a secret.

    Now, whereas your liberty and property (your savings, real estate, wage or salary, etc.) are inextricably linked to the economy…how is it that so many do not know what the FED does? Or, one has to ask themself…how have I been made to not care about my own best interest?

    It is my fervent belief that if the two lies and the progressive’s financial generator are exposed…their conspiracy and institutions collapse. Illuminate them..shine the light…the truth will set us free…again!

    • “A true history of economics reveals all economic tragedies are the result of government intervention in the economy.” That should be emblazoned … everywhere. Thank you, Don L!

    • liz

      Great points! Good luck with the enlightening everyone part, tho.