I have supported the Libertarian party specifically for the policies (military non-intervention, ending war on drugs, low taxes, etc.), and the fact that, if successful, it would significantly undermine the Democrat-Republican duopoly.That said, I do not identify with the libertarian preference for a weak federal government. My ideal government would be strong enough to take on massive projects (such as the illegal immigration question) only when necessary, would prevent mass exploitation by the elites ( conservationist efforts to protect the environment, for example,) but would try not to regulate people's personal and economic lives. The authoritarian aspect comes from the fact that I think we have a lot of issues that need to be fixed. An authoritarian president needs to be able to initiate major policies that may go against party and elite orthodoxies, and I don't want some senator speaking for hours to prevent needed policies. If something needs to be done, it cannot be stalled by senators whose only interest is serving the elites.
The typical libertarian is skeptical when anyone asserts that something "needs to be fixed" or "needs to be done." That's because they rarely want to look beyond "people's personal and economic lives," preferring to see commerce as the essence if not the sum of life. They will judge whether anything needs to be done or fixed by its potential impact on commerce. From this Trump supporter's comments I infer a recognition of a collective life beyond commerce, which might be ironic given Trump's supposed qualification as a successful businessman. He seems to believe that free enterprise is compatible with strong government, while most libertarians doubt that. His authoritarianism is understandably vague. At first glance he underrates the potential for mass (rather than "elite") resistance to getting things fixed, though if he's a true authoritarian he should be prepared to answer or override both mass and elite objections. In his contrast between the normalcy of personal and economic lives and the sphere of authoritarian activity I see a glimmering of the authoritarian theory of the "state of exception," according to which the sovereign -- the state if not its ruler -- necessarily has the power to make exceptions to the conventions we identify with "rule of law" if that gets in the way of what needs to be done. This sort of authoritarianism is at odds with the entire classical liberal tradition as it survives today as liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism, all of which distrust different kinds of "needs to be done" arguments for different reasons, most of which boil down to slippery-slope assumptions that exceptions will stop being exceptions as sovereignty becomes essentially lawless. You can hear that thinking in hysterical arguments from both left and right about Trump's potential for dictatorship. We might still ask how President Trump, in his supporters' scenario, would stop a filibuster, but we should note the supporter's implicit assumption that something can be done without threatening the essential character (i.e. our personal and economic lives) of the polity -- that doing what needs to be done or fixing what needs to be fixed won't automatically make a tyranny out of the country. The proof of that will probably depend on whether we can agree that things need to be done and on how to do them, though an unspoken premise of the whole argument is that certain things need to be done no matter how many or how few of us agree or not. Donald Trump isn't the ideal person to test any of these premises. If elected, his failures could set back the cause of "authoritarian libertarianism" for a generation or more. But if he loses the election and things continue as they are, the case will most likely be made again, perhaps more convincingly or perhaps more threateningly -- and people like the man who spoke with the Atlantic are still very young.
5 comments:
One thing the ancient Romans did understand, during the days of the Republic. That is, sometimes a dictator is necessary. Sometimes a decision needs to be made to deal with a situation and endless debate on the Senate floor only serves to make the problem worse. This was NOT seen as a bad thing, as the dictator generally relinquished power once the immediate crisis had been dealt with. Perhaps, among other things, we need a referendum on whether the public should have the right to give a sitting President dictator powers in the case of a national emergency.
It might be helpful to create a category of emergency rule distinct from martial law with its menacing overtones. The key details would have to be who gets to declare an emergency -- should it be the President alone or should someone have to ratify it -- and whether emergency powers are assumed for a set term or "for the duration." Rome used both options at different times during the Republic. There probably should be a mechanism for removing a "dictator" who tries to retain emergency powers past term or beyond the self-evident end of any emergency.
A small explosive in the neck with a random citizen given the job of pushing the button?
How about just a timer? The need for dictatorial power doesn't necessarily mean only one person is qualified to be the dictator. Assign a generous enough amount of time to get the job done so as not to scare off the best people, and if the job isn't done in that time, on to the next qualified person. If the dictator succeeds, removing or deactivating the device is conditional upon a formal surrender of power.
That works as well.
Post a Comment