A number of trends in conservative thought lately have led me to believe that many conservatives are rethinking democracy of late, and coming to the conclusion that they prefer something a bit more authoritarian, something more along the line of oligarchy or even outright despotism. To wit:
One of the tenets of neoconservativism is that the people are unfit to rule, and must be led by a coterie of knowledgeable people who understand about things like the importance of Israel and preemptive strikes.
Karl Rove’s long-term plan for Republican dominance of the White House and Congress seeks to extend Republican rule for 40-50 years. While there’s no reason why political partisans SHOULD plan to give the other party(ies) a shot at governance now and then, Rove’s strong affinity for dirty tricks and electoral theft mean that he doesn’t really care about who gets the most actual votes – just whether or not a victory can be engineered, winning votes or not, fair or not, legal or not. This is hardly an attitude that is conducive to democracy.
The current craze among conservatives for the ‘unitary executive’ theory which in its extreme form (very popular among conservatives) conveys almost dictatorial powers to the presidency. If the president can declare himself above the rule of law just by attaching a note to any bill he wishes to, do we even have a rule of law any more? Of course, down the road, a Democratic president might conceivably avail himself (or herself) with those same semi-dictatorial powers that Bush now appears to be claiming. But Republicans seem to be curiously unconcerned by that prospect. It’s as if they are sure that no Democrat will be in the White House anytime soon.
Now, I am not saying that all conservatives are actively engaged in a conspiracy to transform America from a functioning democracy to a banana Republican democracy where elections are stage-managed dog-and-pony shows put on by the oligarchy in power. I am saying that these particular trends in thought make those who accept them much more prone to accept the sort of changes that would lead America from being a functioning democracy to a functional oligarchy.
I also believe the neoconservative belief that the government should be secretly controlled by a small group of knowledgeable people (i.e., people who know the ‘right’ things, therefore think the ‘right’ things) is fundamentally undemocratic and leads inevitably to government by cabal. Considering the influence of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, I think we already may have such a government. The question is, will we always have it, so long as the Republicans remain in power?
I haven’t given up on democracy, no. But only an idiot would advocate democratic processes only, and ignore all the other necessary factors that make up a healthy body politic. Things like a stable rule of law, property rights, individual freedoms of speech, belief, and thought, and universal education.
Iran has had numerous elections during the Islamist era, while Hong Kong had a quite subscribed democracy while it was a British colony. Which place fostered greater respect for the individual, and which was a nicer place to live?
The OP has laid out some concrete accusations against conservatism. Either refute them, or come up with a comparable set of specific liberal actions that are anti-democracy.
Saying “nyah, nyah, your side does it too” is not an argument.
I would like to reiterate **Captain Amazing’s ** request for a cite on the OP’s claim that
While I’m not a Strauss expert, I have read some of his writing and some writing about him, as well as lots of neocon writing. I have seen no evidence that this is a tenet of neo-conservatism, and I don’t think that the cite provided by **Evil Captor ** is sufficient. It’s an opinion piece by a “paeolibertarian”, whatever that is, and is hardly “straight from Leo Strauss.”
First of all, Strauss isn’t the founder of neo-conservativism. Strauss was the founder of a school of philosophical textual analysis who had a student (Allan Bloom) who both wrote a book that became popular with conservative critics of modern higher education (The Closing of The American Mind), and taught somebody who would go on to become a leading voice in the neo-conservative movement (Wolfowitz), as well as having some students of his own who became prominent neoconservatives. In fact, Strauss had much more of a realist bent in his views of IR than is found in neoconservative thought
Second, I don’t think that’s really a good summary of Strauss’s views, but I’ll let somebody more knowledgeable about Strauss than I am to discusse that.
Third, that’s Lew Rockwell’s site. What makes you think that Rockwell or his people are the people to go to about what either Strauss or neo-Conservatives think?
The possibility also occurs to me that the OP has it exactly backwards. That is, the folks who believe in “x” have left the conservative fold. Guess it all depends on who gets to define the terms of the argument. Viewed from one direction, using the terms as in the OP chooses to define them, the conclusion is foregone. From the other direction, if I were to be permitted to define the terms, the argument is entirely spurious.
Yeah, I’ve no doubt that there are people on both sides who believe the country would be best run by an oligarchy of sorts. (Said oligarchy being made up of their own kind, of course.)
I disagree with the OP that this view can be extended to all conservatives, or all neoconservatives.
Change conservative and Republican to “Federalist” and Karl Rove to John Adams and this rant could apply to the midnight judicial appointments. Or change it to “Democrat” and “FDR” and it could apply to the packing of the Supreme Court. The notion is hardly new.
The idea that only one party is the “we know what’s good for you” party and trying to perpetuate its ideology and the other is innocent is, frankly, a bit silly.
I knew some Straussian academics and studied under one of them. I assure you they were very pro-democracy. Strauss’ influence on the Bush administration has been vastly overstated. Only Wolfowitz could really be described as a Straussian, and even that’s stretching matters. Wolfowitz took courses from Strauss and probably admires him as a thinker, but he thinks for himself. Strauss was a political philosopher, not a cult leader, despite what some people on the far left seem to think. All of his students can think for themselves. And Lew Rockwell isn’t a reliable source for anything, including the time of day and the weather outside.
As usual, you missed the point. Furt was not defending conservatives with a logical fallacy. The fact is that holding power has a tendency to cultivate anti-democratic ideas. The writers of the US Constitution were quite aware and wary of this, and did their best to prevent it structurally. That doesn’t stop those in power from trying. It is not a tu quoque fallacy to state this, or to suggest, as Fish did, that FDR went a long way down this road.
Actually, the structures set up by the authors of the Constitution were barriers against the excesses of democracy as much as they were barriers against the excesses of government power.
I agree that they intended to avoid democracy at its purest, the appointed Senate being one example. But they also attempted to avoid tyranny, based on their understanding of power and human nature.
Isn’t that the difference between a representative democracy (which we don’t have) and a democratic republic (which we do have)?
The fact is people don’t rule in this country and they don’t have many decisions they can make. We don’t have a democracy. We elect others to decide on how to govern within our constitutional boundaries-especially at the federal level.
(For any who don’t know, I should probably wanr you that I am COnservative and usually vote Republican).
While I disagree with the theory of the unitary executive (I favor Congress, assuming it ever gets off its arse to be bothered) it is not what EC says it is. I acknowledge that it, in fact, has considerable support in the Constitution. And of course, SCOTUS has never ruled on the matter.
In short, it says that the President is effectively the controller of the executive branch, and that he may order things more or less as he pleases. He may make rules and regulations - but only over the executive agencies, and only to the extent of carrying out the law of the land. Congress passes laws and supplies the money, and the President can’t fight that.
It has cropped up in the current dispute over NSA directives for reasons largely unknown to me. I’m still not sure what it exactly has to do with the thing. Probably because Congress hasn’t specifically said the NSA could or could not intercept phone calls from overseas suspects.
