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. Here’s part 3 (of several) of my summary and review of the book. Others: Part 1-MontesquieuPart 2-Personal Reflections
In the second main section of Soft Despotism, Paul Rahe examines the works and ideas of Rousseau. Rousseau followed Montesquieu by a generation, publishing his main works in the 1760’s. His works had great impact on the radical leaders of the later revolution in France. Rousseau’s ideas were revolutionary, yet tempered with a realism that suggested such ideas were unworkable in actual society. Prior to the French Revolution, King Louis XV destroyed Parliament and the court system. His exercise of raw power shocked France, creating a hostile, wary public. Though Louis XV sought to reintroduce democratic elements, the public never again trusted the monarchy after this flagrant abuse of power and disregard for honor and due process. The stage was set for the vast experiment of direct government by the masses, which the Revolution sought to establish. The French radicals forged ahead with principles Rousseau had published, yet ignored the accompanying warnings. As Roussea himself would have predicted, the principles were inadequate and the revolution yielded to the powerful and vigorous despot Napolean.
Rousseau’s principles begin with the idea of primitive man simple, free, and happy as a simple hunter-gatherer in nature. Anxiety and envy came later as the products of institutions and associations where men had to depend on others, no longer carefree. In such partnerships, men posture and scheme and are never free to “be themselves”.
To Rousseau, enlightened philosophers chiefly sought repose. They saw other men as trite and vulgar, to be regarded with indifference and kept at a distance. Men of science and letters, such as Newton, were philosophers, Rousseau agreed, but their desire for applause led them to engage with society. ‘Pop artists’ simply grovelled after mass approval and lowered themselves and their art, helping no one. Rousseau attacked priests as simply another profession.
Rousseau viewed all such social interaction as the malady to be extinguished or healed. Men, no longer simple, free, and self-sufficient are forced to interact with others. Participation in social institutions may bring dignity but at the cost of personal bliss. Social practices always lead to preferences and hierarchy within any association. Preference and position produce jealousy, jealously brings discord, and discord ends in war.
Rousseau speculated that ancient peoples independently hunted and gathered as animals do. Problems came only as men learned farming. Farming required property, work, and planning. It required more than one man could do alone so men were led to social interaction within institutions. Rousseau believed discord and war resulted inevitably in these associations until stronger, smarter, richer men learned to employ others to mutual advantage. These are the arrangements of government and markets. Roussea disdained the Enlightenment era in which he lived since it merely made men smarter, leading to more and bigger associations and projects.
The solution, according to Rousseau is a democracy with absolute popular sovereignty where everyone has equal freedoms and rights. However, the society works only if everyone uses their freedoms for the public good instead of personal gain. Rousseau agreed with Montesquieu that this is unnatural for men. His solution is forced education, where everyone is ‘forced to be free’.
Such education would insure that the laws and good of the fatherland were seen by all to be superior to each man’s own individual good. Men would have identical ideas about the good and true as well as genuine social and economic equality. Under such conditions, men could be free even within their modern institutions and associations. Rousseau believed Rome and Sparta both reached this at their height. Such public concern maintained the balance between the popularity sovereignty of the common folk and the aristocracy that actually governed.
Further, Rousseau agreed with Montesquieu that passion generally overrules the reason. So only right passions can ultimately sustain a society, as reason and justice will succumb to passion in the long run. Thus education had to train men to “love” others and country more than they love themselves. Rousseau defined self-control as moral liberty, when a man is gladly obeying laws that he himself prescribes to liberty. Rousseau agreed with Montesquieu that only in a small republic where citizens were personally familiar with one another, could an appreciation for the public will be sustained.
To his credit, Rousseau saw the difficulty of establishing such universal laws which would bind everyone equally. No utopian, Rousseau acknowledged civic virtue as notoriously weak and subject to decay. A materialist and relativist at heart, he admitted that such ‘civil ties’ to the fatherland would be imaginary, yet ‘helpful lies’ necessary to form a free citizenry. He further lamented that establishing a just and free society “would take Gods to give laws to men” plus a spirit in the hearts of citizens that would remain, though laws change and die. As an atheist, Rousseau felt social degeneration was inevitable as such “heart virtue” was unattainable by mere mortals. Refusing to admit that the church might be a source of such virtue, Rousseau saw the church as a primary obstacle. Pledged to an unworldly power, he knew the church would not bow to state or fatherland as supreme.
I find Rousseau’s analysis of modern man’s problem helpful. I disagree with his anthropology. Men did not find trouble when they learned to farm. Farming existed from the first family. Associations are not the root of the problem, though relationships often reveal personal faults. I agree with Rousseau that men are too self-conscious and unconcerned about their neighbor. I agree that a forced education of humanist philosophy is bound to fail. Rousseau seems to wish it would succeed while I’m glad it won’t. A change of heart and mind is indeed required for men to live freely in accord with one another. And it did require God to bring the law to men and to change their hearts. Rousseau realizes what would be required but dismisses it as impossible when he excludes the church from any role in society.
So Rousseau describes the problem correctly, but not its origin and thereby has no hope of finding the solution. We can applaud his insight and honesty, and employ these in our continued pursuit of sustainable freedom and prosperity in a society of humankind. Rahe continues with Tocqueville’s incisive look at America in the 1830’s. Our review of Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift will focus on that in part 4.