Henry Porter has written an excellent take down of Jack Straw and Polly Toynbee in the Guardian Online.
The air is clearing now. Each one of us is probably more certain where we stand in the ideological divide that is opening up. Are we for the growth of state power at the expense of individual freedom, or do we believe that our democracy depends on individual freedom and an inviolate system of rights? If you agree with the following propositions you may just find yourself on the opposite side to Straw and Toynbee.
I commend the whole article to you.
I would add is that the air was always pretty clear from our perspective. There was never any doubt to us where the state was headed or what all these laws really meant. Also I would like to point out that there is scant evidence that David Cameron is not quite happy to stand on the same side of the ideological divide as Jack Straw and Polly Toynbee (whom he memorably praised) for as long as the amoral jackanapes thinks it suits his personal career interests.
Also the conflation of democracy with liberty is fallacious but I realise that we have quite a bit of work to do at the axiomatic level to bring that once obvious and widely accepted fact back into the broader intellectual meta-context. The notion that “our democracy depends on individual freedom” strongly implies that freedom should or does serve democracy. I would argue that democracy is not an end in and of itself at all but at best merely a tool by which freedom is pursued by mitigating the power of the state.
” I would argue that democracy is not an end in and of itself at all but at best merely a tool by which freedom is pursued by mitigating the power of the state.”
Quite, but you would be amazed at the reluctance of so-called “left-libertarians” to grasp this basic point.
Its sad that he asks whether our “democracy” depends on individual freedom, etc., rather than our society or our culture or something else that is not, fundamentally, a feature of the state. Even someone who is trying to push back apparently can’t help but see the State as the defining feature of their world.
And “democracy”? When and why did this become the be-all and end-all? It is at most one necessary but far from sufficient condition of a decent society, but people yammer about democracy as if it were the frickin’ holy grail of societal evolution.
Yes, and where democracy becomes a tool for imposing the power of the state, it becomes the part of the problem, not part of the solution.
That is why I like that splendidly undemocratic work which represents the pinnacle of the European Enlightenment, the US Bill of Rights. It attempts (with varying degrees of success) to put whole swaths of individual civil rights off limits to the predations of democratic politics.
The Thought Police are out in force this Christmas.
I have just heard on the news, that Radio1 is beeping out the words “Slut” and “Faggot” from the finest Xmas record ever made.The Pogues and Kirsty McCalls Fairytale of New York in case they offend someone
The record has only been out for 20 years, but now the time is right to censor it.
Thank’s Jack, bucketloads of freedoms you’ve given us, oh yes!
Actually, democracy is THE best tool for that job. Or, if you’d prefer the Churchillian perspective, the worst — except for all the others.
This by the way is why I tear at my hair and rend my garments when I hear our U.S. politicians talking about America as a “democracy”. We’re nothing of the sort. We’re a representative republic, through the medium of democracy.
In fact, the politicians (ours and yours) who go on about “democracy” are, as a rule, talking about populism — or worse, “expanding” democracy to include granting the right to vote to illegal immigrants.
In fact, calling America a democracy is like calling a Ferrari a steering wheel.
I would argue that democracy is not an end in and of itself at all but at best merely a tool by which freedom is pursued by mitigating the power of the state.”
No, I disagree, not even at best.
Democracy is the tool by which free people govern themselves, but in submitting to its dictates a level of freedom is of necessity lost. When that loss of freedom exceeds a certain level, which can be perceived as different for each person, the legitimacy of the decision making and enforcement process can be lost.
In recent history democracy has been associated with the free & liberal (in its traditional meaning) societies, and it has been conflated with that freedom, seen as a fundamental, rather than a utilitarian component. People now see democracy as a virtuous end in itself, rather than just a means to an end.
The democratic choice is legitimate only if the people are free to discuss and enquire into the issues, so the decisions can be made with all necessary information available. If discussion is limited, or shut down, such as via laws against religious criticism or simply nannyish disapproval of certain topics and stances, the decisions made, of necessity, lose legitimacy, regardless of how many vote in their favour.
The main issue is what decisions may be subject to democratic decision; you may have an opinion on how often I may make love to my wife, but I am buggered if I am prepared to concede to you any say in the matter. Too often, the right to an opinion is confused with the right to have a say.
I am afraid that many on the middle left, Jack, Polly, are just plain nasty people who don’t have the intellectual humility to understand that their opinions are just not morally superior to others.
The big divide is between those who believe that those they disagree with are mistaken, and those who believe that those they disagree with are evil (a tendency of the middle left).
I can understand that “faggots” are one of the fashionable minorities the BBC refuses to risk upsetting, but sluts? [I fought really hard and very nearly resisited the temptation to put in a comment about BBC staffers’ sexual morals]
While the term may be considered offensive, most gays of my (admittedly limited) acquaintance are rather thicker skinned than to get upset at a 20 year old song lyric (especially as the song is one of only one decent festive records in that period)
Slowly, creakingly the human-rightists (who used to think of us libertarians as inhuman rightists) are beginning to get it:
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/12/14/for-once-polly-toynbee-is-wrong/
Having visited the German Democratic Republic (when it existed), and having colleagues based in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I tend to get nervous when I hear politicians bandying the word around as if it was a magic spell, guaranteed to ensure liberty for no greater effort than pronouncing it: “abrademocracy”
Someone will correct me I’m sure, but didn’t I once read about political refugees dieing after abandoning the ship carrying them to freedom? The captain had tried to reassure them by saying they were docked in a democracy.
Very well put.
“Yes, and where democracy becomes a tool for imposing the power of the state,…”
This always happens, eventually, in the sheer natural course of things. This is because of the way that it subjects political principles to herd approval. To open them to question in the first place is to destroy them.
“This by the way is why I tear at my hair and rend my garments when I hear our U.S. politicians talking about America as a ‘democracy’. We’re nothing of the sort.”
It’s a straight de facto democracy now, Kim, whether you want to face it or not.
And yet the evidence indicates that unless constrained hand and foot by democracy-limiting structures (be they constitutions, courts, common law, hereditary Lords, a coup-prone military or cultural underpinning… all of which can work and all of which can also be monstrous in their own right as well), democracy degenerates into the majority (or at least the best organised) voting their prejudices and sectional interests into force backed law.
Got to say, the final paragraph in Porters article, the propositions, is a bit weasley. It could easily have been stronger without compromising his otherwise leftish views.
In my experience, a good reference when discussing this issue with a wider (non-liberal/libertarian) audience is Fareed Zakaria’s article on illiberal democracy(Link). A bit dated but very persuasively argued.
The left have it wrong when they believe the right is anti-state. The problem actually is that most right-wingers are not anti-state enough by half. Many rightists are almost indistinguishable from leftists when you get behind the rhetoric. I mean, if George Bush and David Cameron are supposedly anti-state, what the hell do you have to do to be pro-state?
@Cynic
Stalin.
Close, Kim.
We are a constitutional republic that has some democratic features for administrative purposes. But our constitution is not even remotely democratic. Have you looked at how difficult it is to change? It requires overwhelming endorsement by not voters, but state’s governments or conventions. It is a deliberately difficult and undemocratic process.
Sadly, I have to agree with Billy. As long as we have a renegade Supreme Court (a century or more depending on how you define renegade) that takes for itself the powers of the other branches and a constitutional convention combined, we are even worse than a democracy. It appears that may be changing, though.
rantingkraut,
Zakaria is one of my favorite writers on the topic of democracy and how political structure effects governance. I think he is the highest profile person in the MSM and political circles speaking out consistently and articulately against democracy as an ideal. To quote a little from that article you linked –
Good stuff, eh?
Mid:
How?
rantingkraut,
thanks – that’s an excellent read. I’ve often tried to express the idea that you need to have the rule of law before you can have any concept of democracy – this article does it in spades.
C
As you were. Radio 1 has backed down.
I have just heard Andy Parfitt, head of radio 1 wittering away simultaniously back peddaling furously, whilst reaching for self justification.
Something along the lines of:-
These words would not be broadcast in another context, because they would be offensive,
but in this context they arnt, so…
Context is everything you Cretin!
So enjoy the best xmas song ever, and thanks to Nick M for emailing it to me.
Merry Christmas one and all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltiY-BqvOIU
Aristotle’s skepticism of Democracy appears to have been well justified by what has been happening in the Democracies around us. Is there any country in Europe, except for the Swiss, in which the citizens are , in fact, citizens who have a real say in their governance? You have an entrenched political class, who , with their control of the media,cannot be dislodged, even if they are fit for nothing but to hold onto the perquisites of power.
Rantigkraut: thanks for the link – very helpful.
It was written 10 years ago.
Alisa,
We’ll have to see how this court plays out. But there appears to be at least a possibility of return to adhering to the actual constitution, not the political ideologies of the court. Or to be more precise, it appears that this court may be one favoring strict constructionalism or original intent.
My personal belief it that it should be interpreted as it would have been understood by those who signed it even more than those that wrote it. We’ll know a lot more by the end of this term.
The quote you chose to highlight is typical of Zakaria’s clear and penetrating understanding of government structure and long term consequences.
Mid: I only chose this one because I am not done reading the whole thing yet, and because it struck me as prescient with a basis in a somewhat unusual and specific point of examination, different from the usual one, based on Russian long-term political history, “national psyche” etc. Not that I in any way discount the latter, but this one is just refreshingly new, not to mention very useful.
As to my question and your answer: what is the evidence?
Here is another one, from “Liberalizing foreign policy”:
Finally.
Their willingness to pick up the 2nd amendment gauntlet is very suggestive. That is an incredibly hot potato. They will not be able to leave doubt in anyone’s minds with this one. There is not nearly as much doubt about it as the MSM would have us believe. An armed militia of every male was unquestionably an underlying assumption of the time. Looking at Europe, they wanted to confirm that in writing and to also protect each state’s right to train their own semi-pro troops. To reach any other conclusion, the court would have to either defend an alternative history scenario, or espouse a ‘living’ constitution. Either the court are political activists or they actually believe their oaths of office.
My speculation is going with the latter for many reasons, not the least of which is I think many of them would actually understand and agree with Perry’s point in this article … the one about the purpose of freedom not being for the good of government, but the purpose of government being to protect freedom. There are some other cases they’ve agreed to hear that suggest they may be willing to set some new precedents that recognize limits on government.
Can you give some pointers?
Well, the article Perry links to is in the Guardian, which is significant in itself, I guess. I certainly hope you are right, I do wonder though what Paul’s take on this is:-)
Democracy is not a good in itself. If it leads to opression or the curtailment of freedoms then oppressive democracy is to be fought, just as any other oppressive political regime is to be fought.
This is not a viewpoint which is seldom heard in the MSM, or in mainstream political discourse; it is a viewpoint which is NEVER heard. Democracy is taken as the endpoint, and when freedom is mentioned it is an embarrasement, a concept more to be associated with a naive American cold war politician than a sophisticated European one.
What do we do people? How do we bring this to the forefront in a world where our freedoms are being trashed and replaced with democratically validated entitlements?
I’m remembering stuff that I read but didn’t bookmark (shades of Paul). Watson v. United States was definitely a good sign. Here (PDF) is an interesting review of the past year. Wilkie v. Robbins was such a spectacular fup on every level that I hope there is a strong desire in the court not to do that again. Needless to say, I am no Souter fan, but I also oppose the apparently totalitarian positions of Thomas and Scalia. The link explains it better, but in a nutshell, Thomas and Scalia believe that judicial restraint means staying out of the government’s way.
There is more here, but I didn’t read all of it.
Thanks, Mid – I’ll read it.
Toynbee and Porter (which is where this discussion began after all) were on the Today programme this morning. Something Toynbee said struck me as being quite silly.
She said something along the lines of “Individualism is the greatest threat to the collective that exists today.”
Does she even know what she’s talking about? Ohter than that it was just a regurgitation of their respective articles, further reinforcing my belief that Toynbee is as mad as a bag of badgers.
A moron working for Radio One? That’s unpossible! I gave up listening to it back when I was a chitlen. It was shortly after some daft moo said that Bill Clinton was the governor of “Ar-Kansas”. I thought life was just too short after that.
“Individualism is the greatest threat to the collective that exists today.”
Finally, Polly has said something I can agree with. Lets hope she is right and all go out and promote individualism.
Dear Polly is absolutely right and has just told us what her values are. To work from that statement alone, it is possible to say that Polly and I share a meta-context but sit at opposite ends of the valued principle scale. In other words, we agree on what the game is, but are on opposite teams.
“In fact, calling America a democracy is like calling a Ferrari a steering wheel.”
I nominate that for a samizdata QOTD – I nearly pissed myself laughing!
Viscount Monckton (or Christopher Monckton – whichever takes your fancy) has done a write-up of the Bali climate change conference which rather neatly encapsulates some of the points being made on this thread as they are applied to this particular ‘eco-collective ideology’.
More details at Gates of Vienna if anyone’s interested
Democracy isn’t much worse than any other form of government (actually, probably better than average) when the government’s powers and role are limited. When a town needs to decide who to contract road construction to, representative democracy is harmless.
My problem is when collectivists talk about “democratizing” new realms. El Casa de Sunfish isn’t a democracy. It’s a dictatorship, population me. (And a dog who occasionally tries to usurp the whole couch, and a cat who doesn’t respect my authoritah at all). Are the democratizers planning to subject my dinner plans to popular vote? Must I now consider the wishes of the masses in deciding whether to lift weights tomorrow, or ski instead? Is the choice between hefeweizen and APA going to be a referendum, and if so can I hold a special election or must I wait until November to decide what kind of beer to have? (I’d really like an answer in the next ten minutes, since that was when I was planning on pouring same)
Why yes, yes it is.
“Individualism is the greatest threat to the collective that exists today.”
When was the last time our Pol had the almost unanimous support of the non left blogotariat? I nominate this for QOTD.
Yes indeed.
And it is a hopeful sign that Polly does not understand that “the collective” sounds very nasty indeed to most people .
Even the Hollywood left have limits – but it seems Polly does not.
I take it that if the lady watched “Star Trek: New Generation” she would cheer for the Borg.
Or that Polly would think that the “City of the Gods”,= that Plato describes, where “people” (for they are not people really) are not only equal in income and wealth but all “feel pleasure and pain at the same things” and are alike in every way, is somehow a good thing.
Right to travel? What right to travel?
No travel if the collective wants you to stay put.