It's a shame that Jim Henley's a family man, because he keeps writing things that make me want to head south for a hot anarchofag make-out session (Who leads? No one leads? It's a self-organizing make-out phenomenon!) In this case:
There is, as they say, a lot of ruin in a nation. I expect the yoke of our weirdly Brezhnevite future to fall relatively mildly on most necks for quite awhile, including mine. People like me and all the other cranks with blogs are fundamentally unimportant, and the genius of one-party rule in this country is, so far, to let the unimportant slide.You talk about Soviet America, or Fascist America, and people look at you like you're nuts because, after all, where are the bread lines? Where is the uniform drabness (well, okay, there's plenty of that)? Where is the oppressive misery?
We seem to believe that every single person in an oppressive regime or one party state spends his days smoking stale cigarettes and waiting to buy stale bread with his stale government paycheck on a dim street in atmospheric drizzle while the party newspaper blows by and a baby carriage rolls down the stairs, or whatever. But hey, there were plenty of Muscovites who lived high and fine during even the slender years of Soviet decline, and there were certainly plenty of Germans and Italians living fine and dandy pretty much until the bombs started falling on their cities. Repressive governments do not produce uniform misery; they produce class and caste like every other society on earth.
This is all to say that it will be a bad and very distant day in America when we're all drowning together. And because of that, it will be very easy for your basic suburban technocrat-salaryman to go right on believing that only terrorists get tortured, only black people go to jail, and if his little girl gets knocked up, well, there are ways, baby. There are ways.
3 comments:
On one hand I've been nodding along with Jim Henley as he laments the loss of anything like republican principles. You're right, he's sharp. But on the other hand, he's been unable to resist dropping the bomb on a Democratic strawman or two in the process (since it's the kind of government Dems wanted, it's their fault), an argument which I think is beneath him. The Democrats deserve no small measure of contempt for failing to oppose the current authoritarian power shifts, but for fuck's sake, they're not the ones that wrote the thing.
I also agree with Jim and his commenters that it's the drug community and the unpopular elements of the press that'll be the next bumped on the slide.
So why am I telling that to you? It's because I was thinking about this this morning, and thinking you were probably right after all.
K
Yer link t'ain't werkin.
I addressed your point about Dems and authorship, sort of, in my post today.
But as far as Henley's point about Dems getting the government they didn't want by getting the government they wanted, I don't think that's really a strawman. You know as well as anyone that despite my anarcholibertarian-tinged views, I'm not entirely inimical to the desires of leftist governance. I actually hold the social democratic experiment of Europe in high esteem. It's flaws are myriad, but Western Europeans, despite these, have created a peaceful, stable, enviably equal society, at least compared to our own.
But that is the fortunate legacy of population, demography, a certain kind of education, and an exhaustion with war.
In a more martial society like our own--particularly a pseudo-religious, poorly educated society like our own--it's just a grave, grave error to confer such power and esteem on government, believing, as I've accused Dems of believing, that FDR is gonna come back one of these days and exercise that power more properly. Jim's point shouldn't be lightly taken: don't give power to good men in government that you would fear with bad men in government.
Sorry about the link. It was an old exchange, a year ago maybe, going something like,
Me: Bluster and division is fine. Things getting done is worse if you think about it.
You: Don't get all Weimar on me.
Me: It's not really so far gone as that, is it?
In hindsight, I'm leaning toward your view, that yes, it is so far gone as that.
I'm hesitant to blame this on the leftists, however. (And more hesitant to argue history, sigh.) I'm ambivalent on the FDR- or LBJ-esque expansions of government, but I don't think these were the tools that were in operation last week, unless you want a blanket condemnation of complacent congresses (and why not).
I can see the case for how monster expansion of federal charity programs led to enhanced police powers in the executive (it was unilateral effort of the executive, it made the people more dependent on the government--I'm pretty sympathetic to that brand of libertarianism), but I find them a bit subtle. A doesn't necessarily lead to B, not unless we let it.
What happened here, is that the executive took yet another step in an authoritarian direction. Curse the token opposition for letting them do it, but dammit, curse the actual perpetrators twice more.
It was wrong of me to call that a straw man though. Jim's point is a good one, I was just a little agape at his choice of emphasis.
K (now onto the other post. good thing I'm not at work or anything)
Post a Comment