For Marx, the existing institutions have been set up by the ruling class. Therefore, society exists not as a matter of just law, but at the will of the bourgeoisie. The law is nothing more than the means by which the bourgeoisie satisfies its own interests and happiness—that is, the control of production, economic domination, and private property. “All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change, consequent upon the change in historical conditions. . . . In this sense the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”42 Then, like Rousseau and Hegel before him, and the progressives decades later, Marx attacked natural law and the principles of individual liberty: “The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property—historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production—the misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.”43
Marx also targeted education, for it promotes the status quo; it is only useful if applied as a tool for social justice, a view largely adopted by American intellectuals and educators during the Progressive Era. “And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”44
Marx’s goal was not to build on the past or the present, but to break absolutely from them. “The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs. But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages . . . the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.”45 And the manner in which this revolution and thorough transformation will occur? “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property and on the conditions of the bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”46
Therefore, by violence and force, at least at the start, economics, party, politics, and law will all become centralized within the state, until the perfect egalitarian society is established and the individual is emancipated from the productive process, at which point the state itself will wither away. “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of the vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so-called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”47
Popper rightly condemned Marx as a false prophet. “He was a prophet of the course of history, and his prophecies did not come true; but this is not my main accusation. It is much more important that he misled scores of intelligent people into believing that historical prophecy is the scientific way of approaching social problems. . . . Socialism was to be developed from its Utopian stage to its scientific stage; it was to be based upon the scientific method of analyzing cause and effect, and upon scientific prediction. And since he assumed prediction in the field of society to be the same as historical prophecy, scientific socialism was to be based upon a study of the historical causes and historical effect, and finally upon the prophecy of its own advent.”48 “There is no reason why we should believe that, of all sciences, social science is capable of realizing the age-old dream of revealing what the future has in store for us. . . .”49 This is a spectacular understatement. Between 85 million and 100 million deaths are attributed to communism’s workers’ paradise. And there are the infinite horror stories in places like the People’s Republic of China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.50
Nonetheless, out of these monumentally flawed theories of human behavior and political organization, and the misinterpretation and misapplication of human history, was born the American progressive movement, the modern forms of which plague the civil society and imperil its existence.
FOUR
* * *
ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE TYRANNY
OBVIOUSLY, AS ONE WOULD expect, there is not a seamless symmetry among and between the various American progressives and certain of the principal philosophers who influenced them. However, there certainly are significant similarities of outlook and attitude toward mankind, economics, law, politics, and government; there is a zealous belief and commitment in reengineering both man’s nature and his social environment toward egalitarian and utopian ends; and there is an affinity for centralized rule, whether of the fascistic or socialistic kind, some hybrid thereof, or some derivative thereof. For these reasons and others, the American progressive philosophers, intellectuals, and politicians uniformly disparaged the principles of the American founding, the American civil society, and the American constitutional system. Whether idealistic historicism, material historicism, historic dialecticism, material dialecticism, synthesizing of opposites, actualizing individualism, conscious individualism, egalitarianism, the social sciences, the behavioral sciences, etc., the individual is swept up into, and ultimately disfigured by, a whirlwind of ideological concepts and impossibilities. As the oppressiveness and impracticability of progressivism spreads, the more hard-line and belligerent become its proponents and enforcers. Ultimately, it leads to the unraveling of the civil society.
What is the civil society and why is it so important? As I explained in Liberty and Tyranny:
In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous—that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.
In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish a society’s cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-b
eing and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.
In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.
In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly, provides the governing framework for the restraints on the polity, thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse of power.1
The civil society predates the constitutional order. Its subjugation and transformation by a voracious and an unappeasable administrative state is the true object of the progressive ideologue. But the purpose of a constitution, or at least the American constitution, is to secure politically the human harmony within the civil society so that individual liberty, equal justice, and the civil order may be nurtured and maintained. The difficulty, as James Madison explained in Federalist 51, is to bring order to liberty and liberty to order: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”2
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders proclaimed “[t]hat to secure these [unalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .” They went on to say what was intolerable. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” However, the Founders were also fearful of the dangers of constant rebellion and revolution. They made clear that changing governments is a matter of the utmost seriousness, requiring wise judgment. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. . . .”3
Of course, the progressives are well aware that the Declaration, and its governing expression, the Constitution, are enormous impediments to their purposes inasmuch as the form of government that best reflects the values of the civil society and secures its existence is constitutional republicanism. Thus, as is now obvious, various doctrines of administrative-state centralization have been developed and increasingly accepted, where the equivalent of Plato’s Guardians (whom I discussed at length in Ameritopia)—that is, a select few of highly educated and specially trained governing elite—oversee the operation of society. Progressives insist this is the normal evolution of government from a pioneering, revolutionary period to an increasingly complex and modern society.
However, despite the extensive writings about the supposed professional governing class with specialized expertise that will presumably bring not just order to chaos but utopian-like perfection to humanity, it is fair to ask: Who are these guardians? What makes them experts? Are they experts by specific, technical training or as generalists? Are they experts by graduating from Ivy League schools? Are they experts by experience, knowledge, or judgment? Are they experts by training in the social and behavioral sciences or the physical sciences? Are they experts because they are more humane and compassionate than the citizenry over whom they rule? By what measures or standards are they experts? And who determines that these guardians are experts? Indeed, what makes them more expert, and all that may or may not entail, than those who operate in the private sector? Are the latter not the true experts by experience, training, and knowledge? Moreover, how are their supposed areas of expertise matched with their assignments to particular governmental departments and jobs to ensure the most efficient and effective performance? Are job placements based solely on expertise or other factors, including office politics? In fact, is not the purpose of the civil service and public-sector unionization, and intervening policies such as seniority, affirmative action, tenure, etc., unrelated to or at least potentially contradictory of a purely merit- and expertise-based administrative system?
Furthermore, which decisions are to be left to the private sector? Which decisions are better made in government field offices versus centralized offices? How can centrally located personnel know the conditions, problems, interests, and well-being of local communities, let alone local businesses and individuals? Is there such a thing as excessive centralization? And does it not result in delayed decision making and decisions based on a lack of information and a lack of knowledge? And what is the overarching mission of the experts in the governing class? Is it to follow orders in a mechanical fashion, or the broad discretion to formulate policies? Is it to administratively institute congressional legislation or to micromanage society? Is it to determine the general welfare, public good, and common destiny of America?
How does the voter and the political environment factor into administrative decision making? Do the administrative-state experts even attempt to discern the public will, in particular or general matters, when fashioning rules and regulations? Or do they deem their function apolitical and therefore immune from any such considerations? Indeed, is their purpose to defy the electorate if they perceive the electorate defiant of their expertly determined policy goals? Is it not the case that at the end of every presidential term, the executive branch issues scores if not hundreds of so-called midnight regulations, the purpose of which is to enshrine certain policies of the outgoing administration after the voters have exercised their will and before the inauguration of the incoming executive? In fact, has not administrative rule substituted for self-governance?
The issues surrounding the centralized administrative state are endless. The progressives and their philosopher-kings, who have debated among themselves for decades and even centuries about the best forms of paradisiacal rule, give scant coherent or practical direction. The fact is that the progressives are no more capable of organizing a complex society than a complex society is capable of being organized.
F. A. Hayek (1899–1992), a luminous philosopher of politics and economics, explained in The Fatal Conceit (1988) that progressive intellectuals “appoint themselves as representatives of modern thought, as persons superior in knowledge and moral virtue to any who retain a high regard for traditional values, as persons whose very duty it is to offer new ideas to the public—and who must, in order to make their wares seem novel, deride whatever is conventional. For such people, due to the positions in which they find themselves, ‘newness,’ or ‘news,’ and not truth becomes the main value, although that is hardly their intention—and although what they offer is often no more new than it is true. . . .”4 “[I]ntelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence, and to suppose that we must owe all the advantages and opportunities that our civilization offers to deliberate design rather than to follow traditional rules, and likewise to suppose that we can, by exercising our reason, eliminate any remaining undesired features by still more intelligent reflection, and still more appropriate design and ‘rational coordination’ of our undertakings. This leads one to be favorably disposed to [central planning]. . . . [T]hey also understandably will want to align themselves with [administrative] science and reason, and with the extraordinary
progress made by the physical sciences during the past several centuries, and since they have been taught that constructivism and scientism are what science and the use of reason are all about, they find it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did not originate in deliberate experimentation, or to accept the validity of any tradition apart from their own tradition of reason.”5 Indeed, in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), Hayek summed it up this way: “All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Compared with the totality of knowledge which is continually utilized in the evolution of a dynamic civilization, the difference between the knowledge that the wisest and that the most ignorant individual can deliberately employ is comparatively insignificant.”6
In fact, the theology of administrative science and historicism, after more than a century of progressive centralized governance in America, has demonstrated in infinite ways that it is not a science at all. The massive present-day administrative state is inflicted with extensive imperfections and dislocations. Its widespread shortcomings and deficiencies include enormous levels of waste, fraud, and abuse; extensive managerial incompetence and delinquencies; overlapping programs and red tape; and failed promises and objectives—all of which are documented in countless investigations, audits, reports, and books (including my own book Plunder and Deceit).7 There is simply no validation of a vast, complex, modern society humanely and effectively managed by a centralized Leviathan reporting to a single chief executive, the president.
For example, while progressives point to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare as models of accomplishment, even these programs have been so badly administered and politicized over the years—including emptying the trusts and individual accounts of their funds and diverting them for general governmental operations, a continuing colossal theft that ensures the programs’ bankruptcy in the near future—they have been turned into the equivalent of Ponzi schemes.8 Therefore, while popular and beneficial to many today, their eventual collapse will be devastating to society and the economy. Other examples abound. The progressives’ interference with the housing market through the Community Reinvestment Act resulted in the collapse of that market, a calamitous disaster for millions of homeowners who lost the equity in their homes or lost their homes outright.9 And the progressives’ most recent project, the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has made health care unaffordable for untold numbers of citizens, driving up the cost of health insurance policies as well as the amount of deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.10 Even in the field of education, progressive policies have driven up the costs at every stage of education and driven down proficiency.11 Indeed, the progressives have made a complete shambles of the nation’s finances. The government’s fiscal operating debt now exceeds $20 trillion and unfunded liabilities exceed $200 trillion.12 Meanwhile, the administrative state continues to issue rules and regulations by the tens of thousands, so many, in fact, that even the most engaged citizen cannot possibly know what they say or mean. Nonetheless, he is compelled to comply, under penalty of law.13