De Tocqueville on Progressivism and Presidential Power

I have been rereading Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America; the translation is by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop.  It isn't light reading, but it is accessible, and every American should read it.  Following his 1831 visit to the United States, de Tocqueville published it in two volumes, which appeared in 1835 and 1840.  Many of de Tocqueville's insights about America are accurate today, often eerily so.

On page 128 de Tocqueville questions whether the framers of the US Constitution were right or wrong to permit the president to be reelected. This is a fascinating question because I can think of a number of abuses that have occurred in connection with presidential reelection during my lifetime, especially during the administration of President Richard Nixon. Indeed, statistics show that the stock market routinely rises during presidential election years, for the party in power manipulates the Federal Reserve Bank in its favor.  De Tocqueville points out that a president who seeks reelection views laws and negotiations as electoral schemes that redound to his or her, rather than to the nation's, benefit. "The principle of reelection therefore renders the corrupting influence of elective governments more extensive and more dangerous. It tends to degrade the political morality of the people and to replace patriotism with cleverness." 

De Tocqueville adds that all forms of government are associated with a natural vice, and laws that enhance the vice are undesirable.  The founding fathers limited the whims of the majority by state governments' electing senators and the electoral college's electing the president.  De Tocqueville notes, "In introducing the principle of reelection [of the president], they destroyed their work in part. They granted a great power to the president and took away from him the will to make use of it."

Progressivism worsened this result because the Seventeenth Amendment, a 1912 product of Progressivism, made the election of senators direct. Moreover, the replacement of party conventions with primaries and the diminution of the influence of the electoral college have made the president ever more likely to be tempted to manipulate public policy to gain reelection.

De Tocqueville writes:

Each [form of] government brings with it a natural vice...the genius of the legislator consists in discerning it well...[E]very law whose effect is to develop this seed of death cannot fail in the long term to become fatal, although its bad effects may not be immediately perceived.

The effect of Progressivism was to pass a series of such laws that enhanced the majoritarian principle without concern for checks and balances.  The power of banks and the Federal Reserve Bank interact with the tendency of the president to manipulate public opinion in his--and the banks'--short-term favor.  The result has been misallocation of credit and other resources and resultant economic instability that, in turn, has resulted in increasing cries for government intervention and socialism.  The public is unable to perceive that their economic insecurity is the direct result of governmental manipulation of credit to the short-term advantage of politicians and banking, real estate, business, and investment interests.

My thought is that the United States would be better with a president elected for one six-year or even four-year term rather than for two four-year terms.  

United States of America, RIP

I just received this e-mail. Professor Tyler was prescient, but he omits one point. In American democracy the ideology of freedom and the ideology of hard money had to be replaced before the ideology of Progressivism or socialism could replace them. This was done by ideologues posing as experts in fields like economics and sociology.  Also, American socialism does not even benefit the voting mob. It benefits a thin layer of super-rich, who have used Progressive and socialist ideologies to explain their money grab. The e-mail reads:

 

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012 
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
           
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in  St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:          Obama: 19          McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by:      Obama: 580,000    McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:  Obama: 13.2  McCain: 2.1 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the  United States  is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA  in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Someone should point this out to Obama. Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution. There couldn't be more at stake than on November 2012.

If you are as concerned as I am, please pass this along.

America a Republic, Not a Democracy

Mairi sent me the second video below from the Saving the Republic site. I liked the first one even more:

Democracies are More Coercive Than Monarchies

"It may be argued that there are really two Powers which are different in kind; that one is the Power of a small number of men over the mass, as in a monarchy or aristocracy, and that Power of this kind maintains itself by force alone; and that the other is the Power of the mass over itself, and that Power of this kind maintains itself by partnership alone.

"If that were so, we should expect to find that in monarchical and aristocratic regimes the apparatus of coercion was at its zenith, because there was no other driving power, and that in modern democracies it was at its nadir, because the demands made by them on their citizens are all the decisions of the citizens themselves. Whereas what we in fact find is the very opposite, and that there goes with the movement away from monarchy to democracy an amazing development of the apparatus of coercion. No absolute monarch ever had at his disposal a police force comparable to those of modern democracies. It is, therefore, a gross mistake to speak of two Powers differing in kind, each of which receives obedience through the play of one feeling only. Logical analyses of this kind misconceive the complexity of the problem."

---Bertrand de Jouvenal
On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth, p. 23

Peter Levine's "New Progressive Era"

I had previously blogged about Peter Levine's New Progressive Era when I was starting it. Now that I've finished it, I conclude that my initial reaction was correct. The ideology of the progressives, and of Levine, ignores long run effects; bounded rationality; processes of experimentation that are necessary to innovation; the importance of private property and the private sphere; the importance of individual rights to be free from the progressives' endless taste for attacking the individual; and the importance of free markets to create a wealthy society.

Deliberation and democracy are only beneficial if there are limits set to their scope. As de Tocqueville argued, tyranny of the majority is the chief threat to American democracy.

Having grown up in New York, the state and city where the deliberative state has grown most extensively, I grew up seeing the failure of Levine's ideas first-hand. In New York, progressivism degenerated into Robert Moses's capricious abuse of power. Although Levine argues that the earlier progressives were ambivalent about unions, Levine is very pro-union. In New York, I watched the business base disappear; property values soar to the point of crippling unaffordability; and the growth of the rat population in the subways. (The city had confiscated the subways during the post-progressive era thanks to the moronic deliberation of that era). The City has increasingly become an elite playground that excludes the middle class thanks to the practical effects of Levine's ideas, specifically, special interest pressure to support public sector unions who have fought for high taxes; special interest eminent domain actions that have closed small factories and destroyed inexpensive housing; and the use of urban renewal and the tax system to squelch start-ups that have yet to prove themselves.

Despite its claim to be democratic, progressivism is anti-democratic. It is anti-democratic because it aims to apply democratic deliberation inappropriately to economic issues and so must fail. Levine does not appear to grasp the concept of marginalism or marginalist decision making; nor does he leave sufficient room for the possibility that an artist, intellectual, inventor or entrepreneur might have ideas which the majority would rather suppress because it does not understand them. This has been the consistent failure of progressivism. Deliberation and progressivism are fine in the limited scope of public decision making as defined in the nineteenth century. The slightest expansions make them untenable. In areas like monetary policy, which are not that complicated, special interests leap to make the topics seem complicated, and the public is easily bamboozled. The result is the special interest constituencies, which Howard S. Katz has called the "paper aristocracy" in the case of money supply, who argue vehemently for the "stabilization of credit markets" and similar kinds of meaningless, self-serving nonsense in order to justify public subsidies. The public is deferential toward the quack claims of academics, and so democracy becomes a matter of special interest, privilege and fake authority.

The public is simply not equipped to engage in debates about engineering; economics; architecture; construction; manufacturing, etc., etc. This is understandable because no one has the mental capacity to absorb all of these issues. In arguing for the public to engage in debates about such a wide range of issues, Levine and his fellow progressives are paving the way to totalitarianism. This is not surprising because it happened in Germany, the first country to adopt a progressive policy.

The end result of Levine's progressivism is dictatorship. Far from being a reform movement, the "new progressivism" leads to the kind of totalitarianism to which Bismarck's progressivism led Germany.

There are more than a few evidences of authoritarianism in Levine's book. For instance, Levine implies that those who "admire the market" should not "have disproportionate political power as a result of their wealth". But this kind of distinction leads to suppression of speech. For instance, is it fair that people with higher IQs have disproportionate political power and so can manipulate the government to serve their interests as the financial community has been able to do with the Federal Reserve Bank and as business has been able to do with the department of labor and the federal trade commission? The fact is that Levine singles out business as a manipulator, when the only conceivable outcome of his progressivism is manipulation by special interest groups.

Given the repeated failure of the progressives' ideas, one would hope that their ideas would have been consigned to the trash bin. But their emotional hatred of business, which they cannot dominate and control, inspires their endless speculation as to how to suppress entrepreneurs and those who do not pay attention to their stale ideas.