Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift by Paul Rahe is an important new book for students of history and anyone interested in the direction of modern democratic societies. It would make a fine political theory text for any homeschooler or autodidact. Certainly reading the book along with the original works it surveys would be far more beneficial than any political science class taught by modern politically-correct faculty.
Dr. Rahe considers the writings and thought of the most influential political thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries – Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. Interestingly, all were French men who observed, studied, and influenced the transitioning governments in England, America, and France. Rahe concludes the three main sections on these giants with summary observations and speculation about future destinations of the modern western democracies. I will review each section independently, intermingling personal reflections that occurred to me as I read (and re-read) Soft Despotism.
Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, written 1748, is widely acknowledged as the most important political book of the era. Its impact on American founders has been well documented. Rahe reviews the ideas in this book and others from Montesquieu that preceded his magnum opus.
Montesquieu saw England’s defeat of France at Blenheim in 1704 as a watershed event. No longer was a vast army necessarily dominant. Montesquieu postulated that modern weapons and artillery equalized military powers, making long-term military dominance no longer possible.
England’s empire was based on liberty and commerce, not on vast land holdings or a vast population. To such a commercial empire, conquered lands and peoples (made slaves to serve the victor) are a hindrance. Conquered lands and peoples are hard to control and require precious resources to manage. A few oppressed slaves with powerful modern weapons can make life miserable for the conquerers. England realized this while France did not. Montesquieu set out to study the principles behinds this emerging English political system known as the democratic republic.
Montesquieu contrasted the democratic republic with the more ancient government forms of monarchy and despotism. He identified the motivating, essential principle for a monarchy as honor, while terror was essential in a despotism. He believed virtue essential in the democratic republic.
In an enduring government of any form, Montesquieu believed moderation is essential. For monarchy, the nobility class provides the necessary balance that limit the monarch’s power. Such a balance can be maintained for large nations, but not immense empires. Vast empires can only be governed by despotism, where remote areas necessarily have little access to the ruler, so must be controlled by fear.
Montesquieu admitted that virtue toward the general public is unnatural and difficult to maintain. It is grounded in love of laws and of the fatherland and is maintained by education. However, Montesquieu agreed with other classical philosophers that man’s reason is enslaved to his passions, hindering effective education. Man’s natural selfishness will overrule his communal or national interest over time.
Montesquieu realized that free men during the age of enlightenment were susceptible to a drifting unease he called “inquietude”. He found confirmation of inquietude in the observations of Pascal, Locke, and Montaigne. Another enlightenment philosopher, Nicole, realized that the freedom and knowledge that men were gaining in that age tended to increase the self-love or sense of self-importance men have – “l’amour-propre” is the French term. In the modern age, man is free to experience l’amour-propre. In prior eras, most men were subject to oppression and endless work to sustain basic needs. Then, only kings and nobles had sufficient resources to experience l’amour-propre.
Lacking a natural, internal sense of public virtue, Montesquieu understood that men turned to partisanship as a means to counter the inquietude and l’amour-propre. Instead of continuing to drift untethered in free thoughts and actions, men chose a side to support. The democratic republic consists of the executive and the legislature. Men would choose to support one against the other, rather than drift without allegiance. Thus the lack of natural public virtue would inevitably doom the democratic republic that depended upon it. Examples of past virtue-based democracies that failed are Sparta and Rome’s republic.
Montesquieu realized that a successful, surviving democratic republic could not be based on virtue, but must be based on commerce, as 18th century England was. England flourished because markets disciplined the follies of men and caused bad ideas to eventually fail. In a commercially based democratic republic, a corrupt executive can be tolerated. Since men can make much more profit in successful commerce than they can as a corrupt government official taking bribes, government corruption has limited appeal for the truly intelligent or crafty. However, if the executive gains control over commerce, the government will eventually become despotic as corruption will be more lucrative than government controlled commerce.
Rahe’s book continues with discussions of the ideas of Rousseau and Tocqueville. Reviews of these sections are forthcoming. More about Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift at Amazon.