How Democracies Become Tyrannies
By Ed Kaitz
Back in 1959 the philosopher Eric Hoffer had this to say about
Americans and America:
For those who want to be left alone to realize their capacities and
talents this is an ideal country.
That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election
of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What
Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no
intention of leaving any of us alone.
How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America
change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is
it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?
The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages
tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato's
Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings,
the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just
society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is
the nature of education and the relationship between education and the
survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story
of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth
of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love
of wisdom.
In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the
much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the
individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state.
During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate
greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to
deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between
virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to
realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral
condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said:
"The state is man writ large."
Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home
by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and
educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the
course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a
dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's
"defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction.
For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to
Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks
a democracy.
For Socrates, democracy's "insatiable desire for freedom and neglect
of other things" end up putting it "in need of a dictatorship." The
short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and
poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of
mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless
pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny
traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education.
Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the
public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: "Extreme freedom can't
be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery,
whether for a private individual or for a city."
Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain what kind of man resembles the
democratic city. In other words, he wants to know how "democratic
man" comes to be and what happens to make this freedom loving man
eventually beg for a tyrant. Socrates clarifies that the democratic
man starts out as the son of an "oligarchic" father -- a father who is
thrifty and self-disciplined. The father's generation is more
concerned with wealth than freedom. This first generation saves,
invests, and rarely goes in for conspicuous consumption.[i]
The father's pursuit of wealth leaves him unwilling and unable to give
attention to his son's moral development. The father focuses on
business and finance and ignores the business of family. The son then
begins to associate with "wild and dangerous creatures who can provide
every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way." These
Athenian precursors of the hippies begin to transform the son's
oligarchic nature into a democratic one. Because the young man has
had no moral guidance, his excessive desire for "unnecessary
pleasures" undermines "the citadel" of his soul. Because the
"guardians" of the son's inner citadel -- truth, restraint, wisdom --
are absent, there is nothing within him to defend against the "false
and boastful words and beliefs that rush up and occupy this part of
him."
A 1960s revolution in the son's soul purges the last remaining
guardians of moderation and supplants new meanings to old virtues:
"anarchy" replaces freedom, "extravagance" replaces magnificence, and
"shamelessness" replaces courage. The young man surrenders rule over
himself "to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by
lot." Here Socrates notes the essential problem when a free society
becomes detached from any notions of moral virtue or truth: desires
are chosen by "lot" instead of by "merit" or "priority."
For the son the democratic revolution in his soul is complete. In
this stage "there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but he
calls it pleasant, free, blessedly happy, and he follows it for as
long as he lives." Socrates gives a brief illustration of the young
man's new democratic life:
Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other
times he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for
physical training; at other times, he's idle and neglects everything;
and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be
philosophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat
and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to
admire soldiers, he's carried in that direction, if money-makers, in
that one.
In short, the young man has no anchor, no set of guiding principles or
convictions other than his thirst for freedom. His life is aimless,
superficial, and gratuitous. The spoiled lotus-eaters of his
generation have defined themselves simply by mocking all forms of
propriety and prudence. What's worse, as these Athenian baby-boomers
exercise their right to vote, they elect "bad cupbearers" as their
leaders. The new cupbearers want to stay in office so they give the
voters whatever they desire. The public, according to Socrates, "gets
drunk by drinking more than it should of the unmixed wine of freedom."
Conservative politicians who attempt to mix the wine of freedom with
calls for self-restraint "are punished by the city and accused of
being accursed oligarchs."
As conservative politicians court suspicion so do conservative
teachers and academics who stubbornly hold on to objective
measurements of performance: "A teacher in such a community is afraid
of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their
teachers or tutors." Conservatism becomes unpopular just about
everywhere, to a point at which even the elderly "stoop to the level
of the young and are full of play and pleasantry, imitating the young
for fear of appearing disagreeable and authoritarian."
The explosion of boundaries and limits extends even to national
identity itself, so that resident aliens and foreigners "are made
equal to a citizen."
The citizens' souls become so infected with freedom that they become
excessively paranoid about any hint of slavery. But slavery comes to
mean being under any kind of master or limit including the law itself.
Says Socrates: "They take no notice of the laws, whether written or
unwritten, in order to avoid having any master at all." That is, any
kind of "hierarchy" in a democracy is rejected as "authoritarian."
But this extreme freedom, according to Socrates, eventually enslaves
democracy.
As the progressive politicians and intellectuals come to dominate the
democratic city, its "fiercest members do all the talking and acting,
while the rest settle near the speakers platform and buzz and refuse
to tolerate the opposition of another speaker." There are
"impeachments, judgments and trials on both sides." The politicians
heat up the crowds by vilifying business and wealth and by promising
to spread the wealth around. The people then "set up one man as their
special champion" and begin "nurturing him and making him great."
The people's "special champion" however transforms from leader to
tyrant. He "drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the
redistribution of land" and continues to "stir up civil wars against
the rich." All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, "soon
discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give
him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them." The people
give him this new security force, "because they are afraid for his
safety but aren't worried at all about their own."
Socrates describes the early weeks of the new leader's reign:
"Won't he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he's no
tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in public and in private,
freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, and to his
followers, and pretending to be gracious and gentle to all?"
After a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war in
order to generate popular support, the leader begins to alienate some
of his closest and most ardent advisers who begin to voice their
misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant
attracts some of the worst elements of the city to help him rule. As
the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract
foreigners to resupply his dwindling national bodyguard. The citizens
finally decide they've had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.
At this point in the dialogue Adeimantus asks Socrates incredulously:
"What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the
people] or to hit [them] if [they] don't obey? Socrates answers:
"Yes - once he's taken away [the people's] weapons."
Thus ends Book VIII of Plato's Republic. I won't spoil the marvelous
ending (Books IX and X) but I would like to spend a few moments
drawing some conclusions about the overall message of this fascinating
text and its relevance for 21st century Americans.
First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always
shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders.
The progressive left in America has spent countless generations
destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family,
parents, and tradition - in short, conservatism and limits. When we
exhaust the financial and moral capital of previous generations (and
future ones, as with the current stimulus bill) we will dutifully line
up at the public trough, on our knees. Citizens capable of
self-mastery will always choose to be left alone. In other words,
they'll always choose limited government.
Second, freedom without limits paves the way to tyranny by undermining
respect for the law. When politicians play fast and loose with the
law it becomes easier for them and for the people to see special
champions as alternative sources of rule. Today in America the
objective basis for law is being attacked on campuses and even in law
schools as too authoritarian and too insensitive to the subjective
experiences and personal narratives of criminals. The SAT exam has
also been under assault for the same reasons. As Socrates warned:
extreme freedom will instill a paranoia about any kind of "master"
including objective measurements of right and wrong, and of merit
based forms of achievement. But when the citizens become enslaved to
their vices they'll dutifully cry out for another kind of master.
Third, is the crucial role of education, which is the underlying theme
of Plato's Republic. The ethos of American education has been for
many decades saturated with a simple mantra: choice. What's worse,
those few remaining educators who chant the old, Socratic mantra of
"judgment" are vilified and harassed by the modern day lotus-eaters as
hateful conservatives. Socrates predicted that all of this would
happen in a democracy. But it is judgment not choice that enables a
young person to erect a citadel in the soul. This eliminates the need
for tyrants, and for bailouts too.
Finally, there is a question on the minds of many conservatives today:
How does one convince the younger generations of Americans to
distrust the growth of the State? Is it possible for Americans to
recover the desire to be left alone in order "to realize our
capacities and talents" as Eric Hoffer says?
I've read that in Iran, many young people chafe at the pervasive
despotism there, but when the burning desire for freedom threatens to
boil over, the government in Tehran eases its restrictions on the use
of personal satellite dishes. Electronic Soma for the digital age.
Hat tip: Larrey Anderson
