It's probably because I was raised in Europe that I find Libertarianism so fascinating; there is -- despite some shared roots in anarchism -- really nothing like it in Europe. So, I have been a faithful reader of Bleedingheartlibertarians since March 2011. Kevin Vallier is among my favorite BHLers, and I never miss his contributions.
The government isn’t us because it’s not a plausible expression of the viable and attractive ideal of a general will. We don’t need to do away with Rousseau’s fundamental political concepts to avoid the Rousseau-Obama conclusion.--Kevin Vallier, at BleedingheartLibertarians.com.
Unlike most Libertarians I know, Vallier accepts a subtle version of the idea of a general will. This deserves more reflection. But here I focus on Vallier's effort to link Obama to features of Rosseau. For, Vallier's post is response to a claim by President Obama:
Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.
Of course, Obama is not quoting Rousseau at the Denver Policy Academy; Obama is quoting, in part, the closing sentence of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (recall):
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.*
Moreover, in the passage quoted by Vallier, Obama mentions "the founders" not Rousseau. What he has in mind is undoubtedly the first sentence of the US Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, Obama is invoking an authentic, American political tradition going back to the Founders as mediated by Lincoln that has a tendency to blur the distinction between the people, the union, and the government. Let's call this the "Founders-Lincoln-Obama strand." While I am open to the idea that Lincoln re-imagined the nature of the union ("new birth of freedom") and the founders, by contrast, envisioned a more limited government, their emphasis on 'general welfare' goes beyond the minimalist conceptions they were familiar with during the eighteenth century.
This is not to deny that one can find eloquent warnings against the blurring between people and government in the writings of the Founders; Obama mentions 'constraints,' too, after all. But the wording of the U.S. Constitution invites the blurring. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address uses that blurred construct, an American 'nation,' an 'us' -- including the future living and the battle-ground dead -- that gets projected onto a future-oriented project ("a great task" a "more perfect union," and "our posterity") that in Lincoln's hands itself is an end: to make a certain form of union immortal ("shall not perish"), with God as witness.
Vallier does not reinterpret US constitutional history [he offers a refreshingly eclectic mix of philosophical resources and sources: Hayek, "Rousseau and Kant, via Rawls, Lomasky, Gaus...Hegel, Green, Bosanquet...Gaus...Hegelians, British Idealists."] But he is wrong to pretend that Obama is somehow drawing even indirectly on Rousseau. While undoubtedly Rousseau was familiar to many of the Founders, the preamble does not echo Rousseau. It is undeniable that in addition to being a political compromise, the phrasing also reflects the revolutionary experience of a certain class of men--and it reflects their (enduring?) ability to get enough people to sacrifice on its behalf.**
Vallier, of course, is free to ignore Obama's self-understanding. Yet, Vallier comes close to suggesting that the Founders-Lincoln-Obama strand is (among other things) a philosophical (and by implication, moral) mistake; as he puts it in his post, there is probably no "interconnected and coherent series of arguments" in defense of it. It would be really a miracle if there were a philosophical defense of the Founders-Lincoln-Obama strand because at each stage of the strand's development political compromises, opportunism, and force play a non-trivial role in sustaining it. (This is not to deny that interesting ideas matter a lot to the Founders-Lincoln-Obama strand.) Either way, this strand is not to be confused with "modern progressive and Rawlsian" philosophical projects.
In fact, it is hard to imagine any existing, powerful political organization having "interconnected and coherent series of arguments" in its favor. I say so while sharing the Libertarian suspicion about those that wish to justify the logic of the national-security-state (and milder versions of it). But from Vallier's perspective we live in a Fallen World (his term is "perverse"). This perspective is a vital clue to Libertarianism, which, is, in part, a response to the enduring success of the Founders-Lincoln-Obama strand, which always balances moral considerations with the demands of power.
To sum up: no great power will be a "publicly justified polity." Libertarians say, 'so much the worse for being a great power.' I salute them. But it makes their political philosophy (and undoubtedly many other ones professed by academic philosophers) more appropriate for the Heavenly city, or a small European protectorate of US Power (I know a few such places). I say this not to end the moral scrutiny given to US politicians and the impact, by the way--we need Libertarianism.
Finally, I close on a detail: another thing unmentioned by Vallier is the context of Obama's words: the President's speech is defending (modest) gun control measures in Colorado, especially "background checks" on prospective gun buyers. Given what we have learned of the reach of the NSA, presumably the data is already waiting to be mined. It would be as much American tragedy as American irony if it is the second amendment that stands in the way of further expansion of the surveillance state.
*Few that take rhetoric seriously would dare to improve on Lincoln's terseness, but Obama's "government of and by and for the people" cuts two words where Lincon needed ten: "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
** I am not claiming that people's sacrifice only because of the preamble. People's motives are varied, after all.
Comments