|
February 22, 2007
"Saddam Hussein Hayek" finally sees the light
There's nothing more challenging than agreeing with a central thesis that is mostly right, but which suddenly veers off on an irritating, seemingly minor tangent which ends up contradicting the central thesis. What's worse is when the thesis involves complex unresolved philosophical questions that have plagued the West's greatest thinkers for centuries, but are simplified and squeezed to fit into a column for public consumption. For me to imagine that a problem like that could be resolved in a blog post would be the height of arrogance. So why even write about it? Because it stared me in the face when I made the mistake of opening the newspaper, and the more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that this oversimplified pablum might not just be meant for public consumption or as entertainment for the little guy in the street. That the author might actually be trying to influence public policy. I like to think that those charged with setting public policy are at least informed. Asking them to be enlightened is a bit much, but the people who founded this country were enlightened, and I don't think it's asking too much that those who stand in their shoes at least be informed. David Brooks paints a view of America as roughly divided into two camps -- that of Rousseau and that of Hobbes. I've read both, and I think both are flawed. But it doesn't matter what I think; the founders of this country were well aware of the dark side of human nature, and while they took into account the Hobbesian philosophy, they rejected it. Brooks, on the other hand, breathes new life into Hobbesian thinking by setting up what I think is a classically false dichotomy: ....As Steven Pinker has put it, Hobbes was more right than Rousseau.Stop right there. Until that moment in his piece, Brooks had been talking about American culture, making an excellent case against Rousseau, and demonstrating why that silly philosophy is on the decline in the United States. No argument there. I have never imagined man to be good, and I have never been a pacifist, nor have I glorified the "noble savage" or any of that philosophical garbage, so I agree with Brooks. But Hobbes? Getting from Rousseau to Hobbes requires a quantum leap, and it also requires discounting centuries of what this country has always stood for: the dignity of the individual, and his right to freedom. American adults are not children. At least they're not supposed to be. The unfortunate reality is that some are. What galls me more than just about anything is to see a growing consensus between left and right that because some adults are children, that the rest of us (that awful "we") need a big strong government to micromanage our lives. Iraq has revealed what human beings do without a strong, order-imposing state. Read that carefully. There are no qualifiers. Unless I am reading Brooks wrong, the clear implication is that we Americans are all like Iraqis. Iraq showed that Hobbes was right, and therefore we (the clear implication of "human beings") need a "strong, order-imposing state." If I didn't know Brooks was a good man who cannot mean what he appears to be implying, I'd be inclined to characterize this as an attack on the idea of the American founding. I'd like to think that it wouldn't be necessary to point out to David Brooks that the United States Constitution was not intended to create a "strong, order-imposing state." Precisely the opposite. Or has Iraq "revealed" that the founders of this country was wrong, and Hobbes was right? Brooks continues, with the apparent assertion that James Madison and Friedrich Hayek would now agree on the need for a "strong, order-imposing state." Oh, and in conclusion (by the way) conservatives dislike evolution: This is a big pivot in intellectual history. The thinkers most associated with the Tragic Vision are Isaiah Berlin, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Friedrich Hayek and Hobbes. Many of them are conservative.Nice to throw that in. Whether the "many" of the "many" include Hayek, who knows? Who cares? Iraq has shown us how evil we are. Sorry I can't solve all these vexing philosophical questions in a single blog post, folks, but over the years I've been trying to defend Western Civilization a little bit at a time. (In that context, I can even remember agreeing with David Brooks.) And hell, I'm human, and I can at least partially understand Brooks' frustrations. Over the weekend someone I greatly respect told me that we should have left Saddam Hussein in power. I disagree, but I don't think that makes me a follower of Rousseau. What brings out my Hobbesian side is little things. Things like seeing people deliberately throwing their garbage (not litter, but garbage) in the middle of a public parking lot when there are trash cans nearby. Such clear evidence that there are people on whom the social compact is hopelessly lost tends to bring out my inner Saddam Hussein -- but that's an essay I'd rather avoid lest I be misunderstood by the kind and gentle Rousseauvians. posted by Eric on 02.22.07 at 09:34 AM
Comments
Wow. The PI piece suffers from the minor flaw of missing the point completely. This is the same story that we see from time to time that tries to say that Classical Liberalism is alive and well, but those mean conservatives and their hard hearts just don't get it. This one is just written to maximize the Dead Philosopher Namedropping Quotient: the more names you use (and about whose works you implicitly claim to be expert), the smarter than your readers you are. The point that the piece misses is that the nexus of Multi-culty, Diversity, and Social Justice by which modern liberalism has been captured is perpetuating and exacerbating the problems it is ostensibly intended to solve. On the one hand, multiculturalism and enforced diversity have a ghettoizing effect. On the other, the Social Justice demagogues have to employ an ever-smaller screen to identify nuggets of injustice in sifting for their donations. Socrates · February 22, 2007 12:28 PM Hobbes advcated an unchecked ruler. In Rouseau, as interpreted by Kant, the general will cannot generate a contridiction, therefore limiting the power of the state to laws and policies that are rational. Why does the choice have to be bewtween Hobbes and Rouseau? Does the contract with the sovereign place the sovereign in a state of nature as Hobbes stipulated, or is the sovereign also bound by the rule of law, as it is in the American Constitution? Charles Barton · February 22, 2007 02:16 PM Benquo, while I admit to occasional sympathy for Hobbes, I see him as a voice for absolute centralized authority, and I think the founders of this country rejected that view in favor of a more Lockean view.
Eric Scheie · February 22, 2007 02:50 PM It strikes me that George W. Bush is the perfect example of the Hobbesian president. He behaves as if he is beyound the rule of law. one of Bush's more odious "Hobbesian" characteristics, is his use of lies as a tool of Presidential power. Bush's lies have now got him into deep trouble with the American people, Illustrating the weakness of a Hobbesian sovereign for a modern society. Stalin was the perfect Hobbesian ruler. Charles Barton · February 22, 2007 03:13 PM The social compact in the U.S. has broken down because the governing classes reneged on their end of the deal, which is to leave the individual alone as much as possible. Brett · February 22, 2007 04:23 PM In the context of a contrast with Rousseau, rather than a clear comprehensive endorsement of Hobbes's philosophy, I think it's reasonable to take "Hobbesianism" to mean the assertion that a strong order-enforcer is necessary. When Hobbes argued against liberty, his arguments were mainly valid against pre-Hobbesian, simple liberty. Post-Hobbesian, liberty-ism has tended to be more sophisticated (excluding a certain sort of democratic messianism among neocons). Spinoza, for instance, in his argument for religious tolerance in his Theologico-Political Treatise, almost parrots Hobbes's foundational argument about rights word for word. Of course, it's possible Brooks really did mean to endorse every single implication of Hobbes's argument, but I'm not sure it's fair to assume that, especially since there are ways of reading his endorsement of Hobbes that cast him in a more coherent light. Benquo · February 22, 2007 04:47 PM Yes all that boon of Government to do everything for one... mind you they take all the responsibilities from the individual and with that goes the right to have personal oversight upon them. Big Governmentism and the Nannystate... government is for *your own good*, so just let it be a lovely authority to control your life. And if you dare to disagree, I am sure some new re-education program will be invented to help out such wayward souls. Or plastic shredders installed into warehouses... So wonderful to see the effects of handing it all to a 'strongman'! Of course that is only the half of it, and the other half is even worse, wanting to dissolve National Sovereignty by breaking the People into every tiny division it can get so it can craft something that is a numerical majority, but only by turning off so many people to democratic concepts that the support for Liberty and Freedom disappears. Such a great idea and there are terrorists out there to help, too! Soon we will all head to a nice Transnationally Progressive Tyranny with all of those who know exactly what to do will put themselves in charge for our own good. Heaven forbid that you even whisper the ideal of the Universal Rights of Man as an Individual! And that to be Universal they apply to all peoples and that centuries of tyrannical rule does not mean that the people there *want it*, instead just trying to survive and escape the aforementioned shredders, torture rooms, gulags, death squads, secret police, double secret police, the really secret police, and the gun toting dictator is a task in and of itself. Yes, that is a social condition! And, no, it is not genetic. The variance within the human genome is so miniscule that I often wonder at the long term genetic viability of the species as a whole. Whatever did happen to the idea that people will try to form societies, try to put a just and fair government together and strive to *keep it* because it is more civilized than despotic rule and tyranny? I really do doubt that Iraq was assembled with 'the consent of the Governed', but then they have never even really understood what that means until the last couple of years or so. Heard of it? Yes. Practice it inside their own Nation? No. But to some that just means that they deserve to have despotic tyrants over them with an authoritarian government that can just take over everything you have, anything you make, anyone you love and, finally, you. But then the societal roots of US democracy are not only from the Classical Greek lineage... we have a second form that greatly influenced our society from the Norse and their sovereignty over the British Isles and some goodly sections of northern coastline on continental Europe. And under that conception even Kings were forced to bow down to that convocation of the People. Mind you those folks were seen as the 'nasty, brutish and short' kind and not mentionable by those putting high-minded ideals of civilization together so might have been a bit overlooked. Be that as it may I am sure that those wishing to put people under strongman governments to be *taken care of* do not mean that in the immediate mafia sense. At least not at the beginning... ajacksonian · February 22, 2007 04:56 PM The problem is that Brooks presents us with a false choice, the division is not between "hobbesians" and "Rouseauites", but as Mr. Scheie notes between Lockean and Rouseauites. On one hand we have people who beleive in liberty and responsibilty, and on the other a bunch of people who believe in freedom and are looking for a mommy to spank them. I took this totally in the wrong direction, didn't I? Billy Oblivion · February 22, 2007 06:11 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2007
January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Going to court is so gay!
"homosexual activist"? comment provocateur? Or sock puppet seeking help? The Worst Job in America accessories to fit the official enclownment "Saddam Hussein Hayek" finally sees the light Outside the Wire (I should probably never say never) Please don't make me refrain! Duke And The Cultural Marxist Program Democracy! Whiskey! What?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What's your argument against Hobbes's basic insight?
Liberty is only a meaningful and good idea within a Hobbesian framework. Without at least some form of culture -- that is, customary rules -- there is no difference between liberty and the actual war of all against all. This does not mean, however, that there should be rules for everything -- merely that civil war is not a state of affairs conducive to individual rights.
The constitution is supposed to reconcile the need for a strong government with the desire to avoid an intrusive one. Otherwise, we could have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.