Harvey Mansfield, writing in the Wall Street Journal, slaps together one of the strangest and most circuitous defenses of executive tyranny I’ve ever read. From his perspective, the case for abolishing the rule of law is in the tradition of Aristotle, Locke, Hamilton, Madison, Tocqueville, and a few others. His prose is so unencumbered honest analytics that he might have added Paine, Hayek, Rothbard, and his pet canary too. William Grigg is also alarmed to see such an open defense of, well, everything a liberty-minded person should oppose.
Actually, the best answer is Mansfield comes from Mises — today’s Daily Article — who explains the relationship between the individual and society. How societies form and grow and the contribution of individual volition in this process: here is a point not comprehended by defenders of despotism.
{ 2 comments }
Hi Jeffrey,
Re/ the Lockean case for serfdom: indeed, it is pretty difficult to conceive how the author refers to the same John Locke who created the concept of self-ownership -:( This is one of the most scary examples of double-speak that i’ve been exposed to recently!
Anyways, thank you very much for linking that horrid article. It’s always good to be informed about this kind of things and know your enemy’s weapons and line of defence…
Btw, do you know if similar things have been published somewhere else lately? and if it’s part of the new governmental approach to self-justification? or is it an isolated piece?
Thanks again, M-
Okay, I only just came across this post, but had to comment. You are completely misreading Mansfield’s essay. Here’s an attempt to set it straight.
1. Mansfield’s thesis: The weaknesses of democratic government lead to tyranny (See Plato)
Where democratic government = Lockian social contract theory and the American founding
And where tyranny = imperial presidency
2. Mansfield praise of Locke is sarcastic. Mansfield is a student of Leo Strauss, who argued that Locke was VERY confused and certainly NOT careful. Hence the sarcasm about Locke’s “fine idea” of “combining the extraconstitutional and constitutional in a contradiction.” Its sarcasm. Relying on contradictions is generally not a “fine idea.”
Always look for sarcasm in Straussian writings like those of Mansfield.
3. Democratic peoples (like ours) tend to grant power/influence to leaders who promise to give them more comfort and safety. Democratic peoples would rather have comfort/safety/security than freedom. Like De Tocqueville argued, insecurity and rootlessness seem to be endemic in the liberal project (both “classical liberal” and American liberal). Thus, they surrender freedom to strong leaders who promise them security.
4. The real contradiction is within the liberal project itself:
At the heart of liberalism is the non aggression axiom: every individual is free to do whatever he wants as long as it doesn’t interfere with the right of others to whatever they want. The nonaggression axiom is absurd on its face since every action affects the freedom of others. But the axiom tends to produce isolated individuals because isolation ensures that more freedom by putting more distance between your actions and the actions of others. This isolation then produces insecurity and alienation. Insecurity and alienation produce a desire for security and place. Security and place are found in strong, charismatic presidents who promise safety, security, and meaning.
Comments on this entry are closed.