[lbo-talk] anti-pro contradictions

socialismorbarbarism socialismorbarbarism at gmail.com
Mon May 10 13:02:27 PDT 2010


shag: "something's niggling at me that it doesn't make sense or there's are easy objections to it, but I can't put my finger on it.

i'm trying to get at the anti-government sentiments: opposition to welfare, redistribution, taxation, etc. but the pro-statist sentiments: support for the military, patriotism, westphalianism, police state, etc..."

The American Right (also known as "Americans") is pretty consistent on this. Not intellectually coherent, mind you, but consistent. Variations of this standpoint preceded the American Revolution, it is a strong part of the English intellectual tradition, and it is a major strain of the Enlightenment. It's all over Hobbes, or Hobbes is all over it, whichever you prefer. It provides much of the intellectual framework of the US Constitution and the legal edifice that has been built upon it. It's hardly *everything* but it's not some intellectual outlier, fringe idea, or johnny-come-lately fad. It's a strong part of what in the United States is generally called "liberalism," too, and the right-wing variant, IMO, is actually a bit more logical. Oh, and we (that is, readers of a Left intellectual list) know this, really. It's kinda sorta basic in an Ideology 101 sort of way. In fact, I have a nagging suspicion that shag is posing a sucker question, something to add amusement to a boring day, but I'll throw caution to the wind...

Briefly: Americans will reluctantly allow a State, but it must be a Limited State, involved in only Necessary State Functions. The primary (variant argument: the only) legitimate function of the State is to provide Security. This Security allows Individuals to Exercise their Freedom. (At this point, a clever child can see problems with this argument when applied to contemporary reality, but the true American patriot ignores this nagging sensation and plows on.) So Necessary State Functions include the military (foreigners--always trying to mess us up!), the police, fire protection, prisons, slave patrols... oh wait, that one's out (I think)... maybe air traffic control... yeah, air traffic control, OK, maybe that's a good idea. Doesn't have to be unionized or even well-paid, though. But Security most definitely does *not* include: Tax enforcement, fish and game wardens, social services (when some atrocity makes the news due to underfunded family or mental health services, it is a sign of the ultimate uselessness of these services, not their underfunding), public health, and of course worker health and safety, plus any number of others one can probably name. Nagging sensation getting stronger? Communist!

Or maybe you're an intellectual--a Libertarian, or that particularly obnoxious strain, an Objectivist--and you've made a point of courageously addressing that nagging sensation. Well, your arguments are more logical (if not more reality-based), and this sense that you are now a courageous, cold-hearted servant of Reason might provide you with a comfortable blanket of self-regard, and, most helpfully, will allow you to ignore the fact that your base assumptions are no less unreal than those of your non-intellectual fellows. And logically following through on your loony assumptions will be more squirrelly and more dangerous than following the incoherent common sense of the right-wing American (that is, the American). One must simply steel oneself further. Such is life on the intellectual vanguard.

Now, one consistent (seeming) exception to all this is: road building and maintenance. Does anyone know of a published right-wing attack, or even a Uncle-Fred-at-Thanksgiving-dinner anecdote, demanding that the State has to get out of the road business? I don't (although, yeah, I'll bet they're out there). Privately-run turnpikes seem the logical solution to the road problem, but everybody hates turnpikes. There seems to be an understanding, conscious or more likely inchoate, that without those billions in road dollars, America's Freedom Machines won't be worth shit. And we (sic) can't have that.

Remember, it is all about Freedom of the Individual. Repeat that. You don't have to think about it too hard. In fact, it's better not to think about it too hard. Just repeat it. Damn government!

I've got my own ideas about how one of the core ideas of the Enlightenment became so much ga-ga noise. It has to do with... the historical development of capitalism. Yes, this is hardly original with me. I'll stop, it seems so obvious it's embarrassing... Sucker question, shag? Is that it?

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:07 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> does it make sense to refer to tea party as being
> anti-government/pro-statist ?
...



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list