The End of Democracy?
At the end of a column on the race for the RNC chairmanship, Reasons’s Brian Doherty gets provocative:
Last week, an important figure in modern intellectual conservative history, of the sort that would-be RNC chiefs and members would probably little note nor long remember, died: Father Richard John Neuhaus.
My favorite Neuhaus moment involved a now mostly forgotten intra-right wing controversy that is worth remembering: In 1996 he ran a symposium in his magazine First Things which seriously raised the question (in the context, mostly, of judicial decisions about abortion) of whether the U.S. government had so exceeded both its legitimate mandate and any meaningful democratic controls that conscientious citizens should no longer owe it their allegiance. Not so much in memory of Neuhaus, but in respect for its own soul, the GOP needs to ask itself whether a government that so exceeds its constitutional mandates is one the American people have any reason to respect—and to realize the extent to which it is complicit in the out-of-control, improvident, destructive beast the U.S. government is.
Is serious contemplation, and action, on this basic question going to be the best thing for the electoral prospects of the Republican Party in the short term? Probably not. Is it the best thing for the future of this grand experiment in ordered liberty? Yes, it is. Guess which consideration will be preeminent in the decision-making of Republican Party leaders between now and 2012?
Wait, wait! Let me guess! It’s the second one, right?
Filed under: conservatism, government/law, patriotism
Political parties exist to win elections – to expect them to do other than that is utopian, to put it mildly.
Running on a platform of a strict return to Consitutional principles today,while intellectually admirable and courageous, is a recipe for getting MAYBE 25% of the vote.
The point of no return for a democratic republic is the point where the people think that they can vote themselves endless goodies to be paid for by someone else. The US is probably already past that point; if we are not yet, we will be as soon as univeral government health care is enacted, probably in Obama’s second term.
Once that is done, the government will rightly (in their view) control every aspect of our lives, because EVERYTHING can be construed as “health-related”.
The best that conservatives can hope for is to delay the inevitable collapse and preserve enough to rebuild from the rubble.
I don’t know what you think of Glenn Beck, but he–as well as most people in the talk show business–knows what Americans are thinking. A talk show is kind of like a poll, isn’t it? However, for the last couple of years he has sensed a growing anger and frustration with the US government. He says it’s on both sides–left and right. He says there is a growing secession movement–both left and right. In some cases the left and right are actually working together on secession (in Vermont of all places.)
His point is not that there is going to be some secessionist movement sweeping the nation. His point is that more and more Americans are feeling more and more disenfranchised by their government. In particular, he sees Texas as the place to watch–because it has a history of being independent and because it is where the border battles are most intense. (It’s interesting that the amnesty bill was the only thing that seemed to get the attention of lawmakers. They actually listened. Why?) He is afraid of uprisings, what he calls pitchforks and torches. He senses anger and frustration building and worries that things could get very ugly.
He is not predicting it. But he certainly won’t be surprised.
Jon Deur: I’ve written about the secessionist phenomenon, actually.
Thanks for the link John. I’d love to see more discussion of this. I’ve long thought that this could be a unifying theme to bring Republicans in from the wilderness.
I wish. One thing that came out in my research on this topic, and that I think I alluded to in that TAC piece, is the way that war can function as a Great Unifier (the “health of the state”, and all), and so make talk of decentralization seem like so much madness.
But a guy can dream, right?
I wouldn’t right it off that fast. WW II and Pearl Harbor are one thing. Endless wars of Empire are completely different. Recall that this was brought up strongly in the Declaration. So, I’d say wars, depending on their nature can bite both ways.
Ultimately, I think it will depend on whether our system as it is can actually deal with our problems which are significant. If the Federal Government costs more than it’s worth, I think it will ultimately be done away with. If our currency falls and we are left to pay for all the recent bail outs, defaulting on the dollar and the government might start to look better to more people. I don’t know if it’s true but I’ve seen the claim that only 25% of people wanted to leave England.
“My favorite Neuhaus moment involved a now mostly forgotten intra-right wing controversy that is worth remembering: In 1996 he ran a symposium in his magazine First Things which seriously raised the question (in the context, mostly, of judicial decisions about abortion) of whether the U.S. government had so exceeded both its legitimate mandate and any meaningful democratic controls that conscientious citizens should no longer owe it their allegiance.”
I have to dispute Brian Doherty assertion that this symposium represents a ”mostly forgotten intra-right wing controversy” I certainly remember it and it comes up often and even increasingly among my different cohorts. Be it religious groups, civic minded organizations, or legal circles.
Furthermore we can definitely expect another symposium of that same title if and when the Supreme Court starts to abuse its power again on matters of intrinsic moral evil.
Apparently Doherty doesn’t understand the minds of the committed religious in this context. There are only two questions that have to be answered in such a dispute.
#1. Has the U.S. government had so exceeded both its legitimate mandate and any meaningful democratic controls that conscientious citizens should no longer owe it their allegiance.
#2. What to do about it.
The analysis that gets us there is long, hard, and rigorous. However, once the verdict reaches a consensus – that’s set, game & match. We now occupy a different moral universe when it comes to any moral assent to the existing regime.