-
Enough With the Bipartisanship
May 24, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Damage Control for Dummies
May 22, 2013 | 85 comments
-
Assessing a Week of Scandal
May 17, 2013 | 135 comments
-
After Obamacare
May 16, 2013 | 24 comments
-
The New Paternalism
May 3, 2013 | 39 comments
Another Perspective
Obama’s Forced Collectivism
His nonsense inauguration speech and why Tocqueville would think he’s French.
President Obama’s inauguration speech was a giant dollop of collectivist nonsense.
Apparently determined to seize the Constitution from conservatives, the president spent much of his address making pointed references to the Founding Fathers and our history. America’s success, he declared, sprang not from our individual freedoms, but from a peculiar kind of collectivism:
“[W]e have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”
It goes without saying that Americans have been successful because they’ve worked together. No person is a bubble. We can’t live contently by ourselves, let alone build a house or a space shuttle.
But by “do these things together,” the president doesn’t mean a family raising a child or a business creating a product. He means empowering government. He’s justifying the welfare state by citing our history of common purpose. Americans cooperated to build commercial steam engines, so let’s throw more money at the Department of Transportation.
It’s a bizarre argument, and a relatively new one for the left. Progressives used to justify government action by calling the Constitution outdated. Left-wing intellectuals like Herbert Croly said we needed to unmoor ourselves from our historical values and usher in a grand age of statist intervention. Today’s liberals embrace our history and then claim it contains a blueprint for collectivism.
They’re wrong. Our history is filled not with huge government interventions (although those are there), but with voluntary associations. Americans have come together not because of some national will, but because they wanted to create, think, talk, and build, and they needed each other to do it. For all of James Madison’s fretting about factions, independent organizations, often in disagreement with each other, have been the stars in our country’s constellation.
Alexis de Tocqueville noticed this when he came to the United States in 1831. America, he observed in his seminal work Democracy in America, was a land of associations. “They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part,” he wrote, “but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools.”
In this way, America was an entirely different nation than its European cousins: “Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.”
And unlike the French, Tocqueville drew a line between voluntary associations and the federal government. Addressing the concern that citizens become disempowered in a democracy, he wrote of his fellow Frenchmen:
“I am aware that many of my countrymen are not in the least embarrassed by this difficulty. They contend that the more enfeebled and incompetent the citizens become, the more able and active the government ought to be rendered in order that society at large may execute what individuals can no longer accomplish. They believe this answers the whole difficulty, but I think they are mistaken.” (Emphasis added.)
That dangerous contention is shared by our president. If Tocqueville were to travel through a wormhole and hear Obama’s inauguration speech, it would send him staggering to the history books to research how France successfully invaded America.
Instead he would find a gradual expansion of government that’s blurred his line between associations and the state, culminating in a president who thinks government overreach is a form of national cooperation. For Obama, the associations that “build inns,” to use one of Tocqueville’s examples, mesh with the federal government that demands innkeepers obtain permits to serve alcohol. The state is no longer a restrained protector of our freedoms. It’s just another association, a harmless expression of the people. To believe that is to abandon skepticism of domestic government power. Which, of course, is exactly what the left wants.
What happens when power is shifted from voluntary associations to big government? Tocqueville issued this dystopian warning:
It is easy to foresee that the time is drawing near when man will be less and less able to produce, by himself alone, the commonest necessaries of life. The task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend it every day. The more it stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance: these are causes and effects that unceasingly create each other. Will the administration of the country ultimately assume the management of all the manufactures which no single citizen is able to carry on? And if a time at length arrives when, in consequence of the extreme subdivision of landed property, the soil is split into an infinite number of parcels, so that it can be cultivated only by companies of tillers will it be necessary that the head of the government should leave the helm of state to follow the plow? The morals and the intelligence of a democratic people would be as much endangered as its business and manufactures if the government ever wholly usurped the place of private companies. Feelings and opinions are recruited, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal influence of men upon one another.
The president can rationalize big government all he wants. But he can’t pretend it’s the same as the cooperation that made us great. His ideal America, in which the benevolent federal government solves all our problems, is what Tocqueville feared most.
And besides, it’s just so…French.
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Purple
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/24/obamas-forced-collectivism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 1.24.13 @ 6:25AM
Brilliant article & very apt quote from Toqueville:
" The task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend it every day. The more it stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance: these are causes and effects that unceasingly create each other... The morals and the intelligence of a democratic people would be as much endangered as its business and manufactures if the government ever wholly usurped the place of private companies. Feelings and opinions are recruited, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal influence of men upon one another."
Obama's collectivism is just another word for socialism and fascism.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.13 @ 6:58AM
"Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his absolute mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system of the country would be the most powerful monopolist conceivable…it would have complete power to decide what we are to be given and on what terms. It would not only decide what commodities and services were to be available and in what quantities; it would be able to direct their distributions between persons to any degree it liked.”
― Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Appleby| 1.24.13 @ 7:22AM
We in Toronto have seen this in cards and spades as Canada has shut out American companies to the best of its ability and created pale copies of them that don't provide what Canadians want. For example, we have one giant monopoly Canadian book chain (Chapters/Indigo, which became one monopoly chain out of the two choices we used to have) -- and I can virtually guarantee that whatever book I want, they will not have it and not be able to get it. The conventional wisdom was that Canadians are frightened of choices, and prefer to have a limited supply of a few brands of everything so they don't have to make any decisions. Oh, and everything we have been able to get costs twice what the Americans pay. Now that the dollar is nearly at par, and the PM has raised the duty free allowance to $800 for a weekend away, people from here are flooding to the USA to buy real goods at low prices. The result is that Target is opening a large number of stores in Canada, and Wal-Mart will also open up another 300 stores here, closing down the pale copy, Zeller's, that charged high prices for limited goods and incidentally has the most surly and ill mannered (and largely invisible) clerks in the history of the world.
Tom Kyba| 1.24.13 @ 12:20PM
I tried e-mailing Chapters a 4 or 5 years ago, asking why I see political books with a liberal point of view so prominently postioned on displays in their store, as well as many more on the shelf, but books with a conservative bent were almost non existent. I got a robo e-mail thanking me and assuring me that they care about their customers' opinions, and that was it.
fmm| 1.24.13 @ 12:44PM
Sounds like what happens when trying to email your congress representative.
Appleby| 1.24.13 @ 4:41PM
Heather (the owner) refused to carry Mark Steyn's (a Canadian) books, even the NYT Best Sellers, for the longest time, until he published an article titled "Dude, Where's My Books?" and people started realizing she was deliberately keeping them out of her stores. It's possible to buy conservative books these days, but the clerks are all liberals and will give you their political opinion whether you want it or not.
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 4:58PM
Did you notice if they had FINAL EXIT?
Von Mises Jr| 1.24.13 @ 11:28AM
This is the "soft tyranny" that Tocqueville spoke of. No man can act without the consent of the state and therefore loses all freedom in the classical sense.
We just saw the monopolistic game played out again with the other hand while the hand we were watching was reaching for our guns.
The elites told us for months that we were doomed by the "fiscal cliff" if we did not raise taxes on the rich. They claimed that it would yield $60B per year.
But while nobody was watching, Boehner passed a $60B Sandy Relief Bill. About $9B went to insurance companies to pay claims. In a capitalist system, Premiums would be used to pay claims and raised if needed. But in Omerica, Warren Buffet who owns lots of insurance company stock and debt just got bailed out. He gets to keep all his $40B, not pay $1B in back taxes and the tax payer just paid for his insurance company claims.
BTW, the other $51B went to Alaskan Fisheries, a roof on a government building in DC, ornamental trees who knows where else , and I am sure several slush funds.
PatrickO| 1.24.13 @ 8:49AM
Nice (pun intended).
The quote from Obama's address also shows that he and his speechwriting team haven't lost their fondness for building and attacking straw men: Militias versus Communists! One (ring) to train all the teachers! And nobody in the media calls nonsense on all the ersatz eloquence.
Pecos Pete| 1.24.13 @ 9:02AM
Matt Purple: More from you, sir. Well done!
(Maybe TAS is not coming down with RINO infection.)
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 12:15PM
He sucks. (Just kidding, Matt)
"The more enfeebled and incompetent the people become, the more able and active the Government ought to be rendered in order that Society at large may execute what individuals can no longer accomplish."
What da ya know? That's what half of the people here say. They want Government to do for them, that which they no longer know how, or wish to, do for themselves. One need only look as far away as the nearest Inner City Minority Community. It's Dirty, with too many Shops Vacant, Empty, or Boarded Up. Too many kids with nothing to do, and no Man in the House to teach them How to be a Man.
It didn't used to be that way.
The Inner Cities used to Rock. Especially in the Black areas. Harlem was a Mecca for Talent, and Black Owned Businesses. Mom and Pop Stores that provided Goods and Services, and Jobs to Black Youths, back in the day.
Then came The Great Society. The Federal Government came in and Forced the Black Man outta the house. The Gov't would take care of everything.
They have been Conditioned for the last 50 Years to sit at home, and wait for the Mailman.
I'm not pickin on them. They were just the first. The Left in this Country is FORCING people on Dependency, as a Domestic Policy Goal. Like the Drug Dealer, they give ya a little at first, for free, until they get ya hooked, and then they Control your life.
No different.
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 4:59PM
This why they have signs in the National Parks that read: Don't Feed The Bears.
LarryK| 1.24.13 @ 9:34AM
A forced people are not a free people.
JD| 1.24.13 @ 10:54AM
Your pithy comment does nothing to convince Leftists of the need to change.
As evidenced by the statements of the Leftists who post on this site, "freedom", in and of itself, is not a value worth having. They only value freedom IF they can see a very direct benefit of freedom in terms of other values (wealth, health, etc). Of course freedom is an essential component in building those other values, but the relationship between freedom and those results isn't direct enough for liberals to perceive it.
Strangely, the Left's preeminent value, "equality", produces no resulting benefits at all, yet they do not care.
JD| 1.24.13 @ 10:50AM
The Left has entrenched in our society the use of the word "public" to describe government funds and government actions.
This is a lie.
The actions of the supposed "public" are nothing more than restrictions on the behavior of the actual public. Government is not "us, cooperating." It is as much a "them" as any private business. We might have some influence on it (though each person's individual influence is small), but it is NOT an "us".
The difference between things that the Left labels "public" and the things labeled "private" is that we have a lot less freedom regarding the former, and we benefit a lot less from it.
dominic1955| 1.24.13 @ 11:29AM
It is frightening to see some of the evils of modernism and liberalism come to fruition. We saw it in the Catholic Church in the 60s and now we are seeing it (explicitly, its been a long time coming) in the U.S. It is seeing the shell of both still functioning and acting, yet the same spirit that enlivened both has been crowded by some demonic cukoo. It is eminently frustrating to be one of the ones who recognizes the imposter for what it is-an usurper-while most blithely go about their day.
While I have faith that the Good will win in the end, it looks bleak right now for the U.S. The Church is starting (and I mean just starting!) to show some signs of recovery. Much of the U.S. seems willing to obediently line up to trade their birthright for the mess of socialist pottage. Unfortunately, we have thrown off the wisdom of the elders who have shown us with frightening accuracy just what would happen if we cease our vigilance. The hens of this breach in duty are coming home to roost.
Riff Raff| 1.24.13 @ 11:50AM
THE foundational principle of all Leftist "isms", be it Socialism, Nazisism, Communism, Caesarism, or Fascism, is compulsory actions and behaviors. Conservative believe just the opposite, in voluntary actions and behaviors. Even conformance to societal norms is a fundamentally voluntary act, as people act in their own self-interest which benefits themselves AND their communities. The Leftist "isms" all attempt to compel people to conform to the notions of what is "proper" according to the "ruling elite" who claim to know better for all.
Job| 1.24.13 @ 4:27PM
re: "compulsory actions and behaviors" strange how almost all these regimes like to goose step too.
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 12:23PM
You spelled Cesarian wrong.
Marc Jeric| 1.24.13 @ 5:33PM
As a former refugee from a communist hell I am reminded of the basic power structure in a communist regime:
1) Secretary General of the Party – Barack Hussein Obama;
2) Politburo – his 44 czars (i.e., commissars, all unelected) in the White House;
3) Agit-Prop Office directed by the Politburo - charged with far-left agitation and propaganda, consisting of our Main Stream Media: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, MTV, Associated Press, Reuters, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, and many local TV and radio stations and newspapers; (cont.)
Marc Jeric| 1.24.13 @ 5:33PM
4) Central Committee – Democrat Party representatives in Congress;
5) Enforcement Branch – Department of Justice under that far-left racist Attorney General Eric Holder and his 25 new assistant AG’s, formerly ACLU lawyers-defendants of Guantanamo terrorists;
6) System of local community organizations (or soviets, as these were called in the defunct Soviet Union) under orders by the Secretary General Obama, soon to be armed as he had promised (“What we need is the domestic military with a budget as big as that of the Pentagon”);
7) Party program of disarming the general population (as per Stalin in 1926, per Hitler in 1938, per Mao in 1948), with the first step in that program accomplished by the 23 Executive Orders issued by Obama on January 16, 2013; after this first step the complete annulment of the 2nd Amendment will follow.
(cont.)
Marc Jeric| 1.24.13 @ 5:35PM
8) Establishment of jihadist regimes under the Arab Spring program (done in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt; still to go in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan), and with help of the existing jihadist regimes in Turkey, Sudan, and Iran to proceed to the destruction of Israel and the associated mass murder of all Jews there under a close supervision provided by Kerry, Brennan, and Hagel. This work will then inevitably earn Obama his second Nobel Piece Prize (his time for a real accomplishment – not like the first one given only on the basis of Hope & Change).
We are well on the way to the bright future of socialism, or, rather, communism. What is left to do in the near future, after the nationalization of our health care system, is to nationalize our energy (oil & gas, coal, electricity companies) and transportation (trains, trucks, airlines) industries under the “cap and trade” regime imposed by the Global Warming Hoax (which, after 16 years of cooling, turned into the Climate Change Scam).
Jim Adcox| 1.24.13 @ 5:45PM
The few moments of Baracko Mussolini's rant against the Constitution reminded me of the noise of a chihuahua yipping at a screen door to be let out to release his doo-dars. Noise followed by excrement.
tabs| 1.25.13 @ 1:35AM
What's the differnces between nationalism and patriotism? Is the country heading toward nationalism?
RJ| 1.25.13 @ 2:22AM
An excellent article. Thanks, Matt. Tocqueville, Bastiat and Constant - 19th Century France has given the world some of its most wise and eloquent advocates of freedom.
Some of my low-information voting friends complain that our elected officials don't work together. How can they not realize that the primary political issue of the day is whether we are going to live in a society where there is personal choice and autonomy or live under the force and compulsion of government edicts? God gives his children freedom of choice. Liberals deny us choice and claim the power to dictate how we live our lives. They do not have the moral high ground in this conflict.