On September 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Delegate James Wilson, on behalf of his ailing colleague from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, read aloud Franklin’s speech to the convention in favor of adopting the Constitution. Among other things, Franklin said that the Constitution “is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become corrupt as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.…”2
Have we “become corrupt”? Are we in need of “despotic government”? It appears that some modern-day “leading lights” think so, as they press their fanatical utopianism. For example, Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time magazine, considers the Constitution a utopian expedient. He wrote, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.… The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.”3 It is beyond dispute that the Framers sought to limit the scope of federal power and that the Constitution does so. Moreover, constitutional change was not left to the masterminds but deliberately made difficult to ensure the broad participation and consent of the body politic.
Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, explained that the Constitution is an amazing document, as long as it is mostly ignored, particularly the limits it imposes on the federal government. He wrote, “This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans, and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.”4 Of course, without the promise of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution would not have been ratified, since the states insisted on retaining most of their sovereignty. Furthermore, the Framers clearly did not embrace the utopian change demanded by its modern adherents.
Lest we ignore history, the no-less-eminent American revolutionary and founder Thomas Jefferson explained, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”5
Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times and three-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, is even more forthright in his dismissal of constitutional republicanism and advocacy for utopian tyranny. Complaining of the slowness of American society in adopting sweeping utopian policies, he wrote, “There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”6 Of course, China remains a police state, where civil liberties are nonexistent, despite its experiment with government-managed pseudo-capitalism. Friedman’s declaration underscores not only the necessary intolerance utopians have for constitutionalism, but their infatuation with totalitarianism.
It is neither prudential nor virtuous to downplay or dismiss the obvious—that America has already transformed into Ameritopia. The centralization and consolidation of power in a political class that insulates its agenda in entrenched experts and administrators, whose authority is also self-perpetuating, is apparent all around us and growing more formidable. The issue is whether the ongoing transformation can be restrained and then reversed, or whether it will continue with increasing zeal, passing from a soft tyranny to something more oppressive. Hayek observed that “priding itself on having built its world as if it had designed it, and blaming itself for not having designed it better, humankind is now to set out to do just that. The aim … is no less than to effect a complete redesigning of our traditional morals, law, and language, and on this basis to stamp out the older order and supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom, and justice.”7 But the outcome of this adventurism, if not effectively stunted, is not in doubt.
In the end, can mankind stave off the powerful and dark forces of utopian tyranny? While John Locke was surely right about man’s nature and the civil society, he was also right about that which threatens them. Locke, Montesquieu, many of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment, and the Founders, among others, knew that the history of organized government is mostly a history of a relative few and perfidious men co-opting, coercing, and eventually repressing the many through the centralization and consolidation of authority.
Ironically and tragically, it seems that liberty and the constitution established to preserve it are not only essential to the individual’s well-being and happiness, but also an opportunity for the devious to exploit them and connive against them. Man has yet to devise a lasting institutional answer to this puzzle. The best that can be said is that all that really stands between the individual and tyranny is a resolute and sober people. It is the people, after all, around whom the civil society has grown and governmental institutions have been established. At last, the people are responsible for upholding the civil society and republican government, to which their fate is moored.
The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism, and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is it accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?
No society is guaranteed perpetual existence. But I have to believe that the American people are not ready for servitude, for if this is our destiny, and the destiny of our children, I cannot conceive that any people, now or in the future, will successfully resist it for long. I have to believe that this generation of Americans will not condemn future generations to centuries of misery and darkness.
The Tea Party movement is a hopeful sign. Its members come from all walks of life and every corner of the country. These citizens have the spirit and enthusiasm of the Founding Fathers, proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the Declaration, and insist on the federal government’s compliance with the Constitution’s limits. This explains the utopian fury against them. They are astutely aware of the peril of the moment. But there are also the Pollyannas and blissfully indifferent citizens who must be roused and enlisted lest the civil society continue to unravel and eventually dissolve, and the despotism long feared take firm hold.
Upon taking the oath of office on January 20, 1981, in his first inaugural address President Ronald Reagan told the American people:
If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and
assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.
So, my fellow countrymen, which do we choose—Ameritopia or America?
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
1. Joseph Story, “The Value and Importance of Legal Studies,” The Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story, William Story, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1852), 513.
2. Abraham Lincoln, “Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, IL,” Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, eds., vol. 1 (New York: Century, 1894), 9.
3. Ronald Reagan, “Encroaching Control (The Peril of Ever Expanding Government),” A Time for Choosing: The Speeches of Ronald Reagan 1961–1982, Alfred A. Baltizer and Gerald M. Bonetto, eds. (Chicago: Regnery, 1983), 38.
1. THE TYRANNY OF UTOPIA
1. My references to utopianism are short for political utopianism.
2. Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London and New York: Routledge Classics, 2010), 43.
3. Ibid., 33–34.
4. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London: Seeley, 1872), 93.
5. Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: Harper Perennial, 2010), 11.
6. Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (New York: Threshold Editions, 2009).
7. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2 (New York: Knopf Everyman’s Edition, 1994), 87. Subsequent references to this work will be to (Volume, Page).
8. It is also important not to conflate the inability of people to redress radical egalitarianism with their acceptance of it.
9. Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 85.
10. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, 16–17.
11. See ibid., citing Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New York: Collier, 1937).
12. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 73.
13. Whether recourse to violence builds into a popular uprising and whether the utopia survives depends on the nature of the utopia and myriad factors and events that are not the subject of this book.
14. Frédéric Bastiat, The Law (New York: Quality Books, 1998), 32–33.
15. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (New York: Literary Classics, 1984), 211.
16. Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2007), xiii–xiv.
17. Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1976), 153–54.
18. Bastiat, The Law, 4–5.
19. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 43.
20. F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, W. W. Bartley III, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 152–53.
21. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, 3–4.
22. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin, 1987).
23. Ibid.
24. Stuart Taylor Jr., “Marshall Sounds Critical Note on Bicentennial,” New York Times, May 7, 1987, as quoted in Mark R. Levin, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004), 9.
25. Ibid.
26. Speech at Lewistown, Illinois, Aug. 17, 1858, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 2 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 546–47.
27. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, 4, quoting Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Penguin, 2003).
2. PLATO’S REPUBLIC AND THE PERFECT SOCIETY
1. Plato, Republic (New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2004). All references to Republic are to the commonly accepted line numbering system used in this as well as most other translations.
2. Although the ruling class comes from the guardian population, for purposes of this discussion they will be used interchangeably.
3. Donald J. Zeyl, ed., Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1947), 400. See Aristotle, Metaphysics.
4. Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy, 404.
5. See F. C. Copleston, ed., A History of Philosophy, vol. 1 (New York: Image Books, 1985), 232–33.
6. Ibid.
7. Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 1, Plato (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 102.
8. Raymond H. Anderson, “Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomani, 89, Relentless Founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic,” New York Times, June 5, 1989, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/05/world/ayatollah-ruhollah-khomeini-89–relentless-founder-of-iran-s-islamic-republic.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (July 16, 2011).
9. Popper, Plato, 199–200.
3. THOMAS MORE’S UTOPIA AND RADICAL EGALITARIANISM
1. Thomas More, Utopia. First published in Antwerp, 1516, in Latin. The first English language translation, by Ralph Robinson, was published in 1551. The edition used herein was edited by Wayne A. Rebhorn (New York: Barnes and Noble Classics, 2005). Unless otherwise noted, all page references in this chapter are to Utopia.
4. THOMAS HOBBES’S LEVIATHAN AND THE ALL-POWERFUL STATE
1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Edwin Curley, ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994). Subsequent references to this work will be to page number.
5. KARL MARX’S COMMUNIST MANIFESTO AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE
1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (London: SoHo, 2010). Subsequent references to this work are to (Page).
2. Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 2, Hegel and Marx (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 83 (emphasis in original).
3. Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2007), 339.
4. Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (New York: Threshold Editions, 2009), 65–66.
5. “America Runs on Small Chamber,” Main Street Chamber, Sept. 29, 2010, http://www.mainstreetchamber-mn.org/2010/09/29/ameria-runs-on-small-business-2/ (July 16, 2011).
6. Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals, 343.
6. JOHN LOCKE AND THE NATURE OF MAN
1. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Subsequent references to this work will be to (Book, Chapter, Section).
2. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004). Subsequent references to this work will be to (Chapter, Section).
7. THE INFLUENCE OF LOCKE ON THE FOUNDERS
1. Livingston was one of the delegates who did not sign the Declaration as he believed, among other things, that reconciliation with Britain was still possible.
2. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Subsequent references to this work will be to (Chapter, Section).
3. Thomas Jefferson’s “original rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence, http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html (July 13, 2011).
4. James Madison, “Property,” National Gazette, March 29, 1792, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=600 (July 13, 2011).
5. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_intro.asp#2 (July 13, 2011).
6. Madison, “Property.”
7. Jeffrey M. Gaba, “John Locke and the Meaning of the Takings Clause,” 72 Missouri Law Review 525, 527 n.4 (2007) citing William Michael Treanor, “The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of
the Fifth Amendment,” 94 Yale Law Journal 694, 708–12 (1985).
8. U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment.
9. Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 27.
8. CHARLES DE MONTESQUIEU AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
1. Charles Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Anne M. Cohler, Basia C. Miller, and Harold S. Stone, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) (Part 1, Book 1, Chapter 2). Subsequent references to this work will be to (Part, Book, Chapter).
9. THE INFLUENCE OF MONTESQUIEU ON THE FRAMERS
1. Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 143.
2. John R. Vile, The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America’s Founding, vol. 1 (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005), 495.
3. Ibid., citing Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention, vol. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), 71.
4. Ibid., citing Farrand, I, 308.
5. Ibid., citing Farrand, I, 391.