Posted on 02/16/2009 9:46:22 AM PST by Tolik
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
[i] As Max Weber noted in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the men who built America were guided by deferred gratification and a sense of limits, not by reckless notions of vanity, pride, and display.
A question I also had. I couldn't think of a specific item, though I'm sure there could be many proposed. My opinion is that prior to naming Ceaser emperor, it is not too late.
It may be that the level of difficulty increases with time as this path is ventured down. As a result, the probability of success for turning around decreases with time, particularly with regard to the level of economic, political, or societal disruptions that may be associated with avoiding an inherent change in our effective form of government.
It seems like it is way past that tipping point to me;
I hope not. Share your concern, but hope not. I like to think of myself as an optomistic realist...
most conservatives seem to be old codgers, like me and most others on FR, while nearly all youth are libs.
Not sure what your definition of old codger versus youth is. Maybe I fall in between. Age 35, very busy at work (can't be home to answer mid-afternoon polling calls), three youngish children, and many friends in my same great state of life. Greater than 90% of my social circle are diehard conservatives, though we are having a lot more difficulty calling ourselves republicans these days. We still pull the trigger for R, but honestly it hasn't been all that easy.
We are not loud, we can't really take time off to protest or volunteer, we are at the point in our lives where letters to the editors can hurt our professional futures(depending on our employers or clients), we have some spare money, but prefer reducing any debt rather than shoving money down the rathole of a non-conservative republican party. We'd make available our time and money to help, but we also expect results and an intelligent approach to the issues.
More important than any of that, at least I am trying to raise my children right, and teach them well. While that might kill their chance for getting someone elses money in a future wealth redistribution stimulus package in the future, I hope they follow my lead and decide that they would rather be productive citizens and work toward voting bums out of office.
Take care.
And if this camp is designed and run by the Dem's?
Be careful of what you wish for - you just might get it.
Not trying to be argumentative, but this is the type of statement that would fit well on DU. It is beyond the powers allowed to the government by the Constitution.
What feline?!
Disagree.
If you want to change the rules - change the Constitution via the constitutionally required process. Otherwise, please don't advocate for a buearacracy to decide what counts or doesn't count for boot camp, or passing.
Your position assumes that tax burden implies a right to vote. Should corporations have the right to vote based on their tax burden to the government? If not, why not under your plan? How about a disabled veteran? If they can no longer earn and therefore pay taxes, should they not have the right to vote. What amount of tax is adequate? Can my 7 year old vote since they pay sales tax on items I make them buy for themselves?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think you are missing your own point, and one that you have very insightfully noted:
Voting to limit another person’s rights when you have nothing at risk is another form of tyranny.
That is the issue, and you are 100% correct in my opionion. But the issue here isn't necessarily the voter in my onion, it is the actions of the representative who won the vote that is of issue.
They have for far too long limited "another persons rights" whther that be through the lack of due process in the tidal wave of administrative rules forced upon citizens, or taking their money by force through taxes.
The erosion of the rule of law, and in some cases the outright abuse of it, is the underlying problem. IMHO
BTTT
You have captured my concerns very well.
I would add to it, that I think that those who "welcome" such events are in fact deciding to be lazy and hopin all pans out well for them.
Yeah, but it’s gonna happen sooner than later, so why keep putting it off? Or do you think it’s possible to resolve these issues via the current political process? A lifetime in Calif tells me otherwise. That is, once you cross the tipping point, the resource consumers will never give up their freebies without a fight. They will do anything to keep tax paying serfs chained to the state.
see #47
btt
As I noted, those who believe that something is inevitable are in effect on the sidelines of history. If doing something now is useless, when will it be useful? What does waiting accomplish. I told you so is worthless if you are proclaiming such from the ruins of a once great nation.
When will those who are capable of making a living but chose to survive on the comfort of government handouts say uncle and be part of the solution?
Post #47 is right, those who enjoy the benefits of freebee's will never want to let go of them. There will always be a fight.
The bigger question is, do we avoid the fight today in order to not get our noses bloodied, or do we start today while it is only our noses at stake. Tomorrow it may be our arm, or our family.
Just because it is not easy now doesn't mean that it won't be harder later.
Personal opinion of course.
BTTT!
Admirable but not likely to happen. If you want to be a constitutional purist, let’s go back to the voting rights of 1787. I’d be fine with that...and since the bureaucracy necessary to validate voter qualification is so hard for you to get your head around, perhaps we should get rid of drivers’ licenses too because it’s just so hard to administer.
Or, maybe you could just take the citizenship test at the DMV, just pick test A for driving or B for voting. Gee, that was tough.
No.
So long as persons without a stake in society are given the right to vote for money from the public treasury, the road to servitude is as sure as gravity.
But if you prefer to argue... If you want to be a constitutional purist, let’s go back to the voting rights of 1787. I’d be fine with that...
Doing such would require violating the Constitution of the United State of America. While it would be legally possible to make additional amendments to the Constitution which establish the voting rights you note, doing so without modifying the Constitution through the appropriate processes would be well, un-Constitutional.
I am beginning to have less patience with your lack of respect for the basis upon which our Republic based. Just an FYI.
Per se, what aspects of the voting rights enumerated in the Constitution as of 1787 (as unmodified by future legal amendments) would you find beneficial to achieving the goals of our founding father as it relates to establishing a land of justice which recognizes the unalianable rights contained in our Decleration of Independence?
Again, this question is the result of my lack of patience with your lack of respect for the basis upon which our Republic based.
...and since the bureaucracy necessary to validate voter qualification is so hard for you to get your head around, perhaps we should get rid of drivers’ licenses too because it’s just so hard to administer.
PLEASE, do not EVER type words and claim they are mine. I never have, and NEVER would, state that failing to validate voter qualifications is anything less than fundamental to ensuring that an election is valid.
If you want to change subjects, fine by me, but don't change them for the simple fact that you have nothing to base you opinion on.
Again, since you conveniently avoided it last time, should a veteran who had their legs blown off in combat, and can no longer pay taxes be refused the right to vote?
You stated in post 28 "if you don’t pay any taxes, you don’t get the right to vote."
Should the veteran have the right to vote?
Please, try to stick to the subject.
Also, please don't tell me that you think the DMV has any legal authority, or in any way should be arbiter of who should be allowed to vote in an election.
Unless I am mistaken, I believe that I 100% agreed with the what believe is the real and fundamental issue you posted:
Voting to limit another person’s rights when you have nothing at risk is another form of tyranny.
Again - I completely believe this. But if you want to waste time proposing education camps for citizens, or debaing the voting rights of people, I would recommend refocusing your efforts fixing the system instead of the voted.
Take care.
Thanks for the ping. Interesting read and thread.
Freedom is man’s greatest concept. It is the only concept that buttresses the reality of life. It welcomes all other concepts.
Are those concepts anti-freedom, anti-truth, anti-life?
.
It will take a march on Washington to wake the public up
Freedoms March is planning a march on Washington
Anti-Obama organizations are being united for a ‘million man’ march on Washington. The permit is secured
From ‘FreedomsMarch’:
PRESIDENT OBAMA, WE DEMAND THAT YOU BE TRANSPARENT NOW
We will come together in a peaceful rally. We are proud Americans who fear that we are losing the America we all know and love. The America where millions have served in our military sacrificing and giving their lives so that we remain free. A people who honor their flag and understand what it means to fly it and be so proud to do so. It is time for our voices to be heard loud and clear. Our government is for the people and by the people. Where is that now? We are PRO GOD, PRO LIFE, PRO GUN Americans who see our rights slipping away as we speak. It is time our voices are heard. It is time for us to shout loudly and strongly that we refuse to live under a socialist regime, where our voices are silenced. Lets take this action now before we awaken one morning and our freedoms are nothing more than a memory.
We ask you TO wear RED, WHITE AND BLUE CLOTHING... BRING YOUR FLAGS WAVE THEM HIGH... SIGNS WILL BE PROVIDED.. WE WANT TO GIVE THE GREATEST IMPRESSION OF WHO WE ARE AS WE WILL BE SEEN ALL OVER THE WORLD. UNITED AND PEACEFUL AND WITH CONTROL. WE WILL LEAVE THE GROUNDS AS CLEAN AS THEY WERE GIVEN TO US.
No food or beverage will be provided. Your welcomed to bring your own.
Entertainment will be provided. We are setting up a wonderful assortment of guest speakers,, political and non political,prominent people and many surprises. Major news networks, including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Resistnet.com will also attend. MUCH more to come .
A special thanks to Plains Radio and Ed Hale for their dedication to bring the truth and the light to America on the Internet.
Please make your reservations early as hotels and motels will fill quickly.
We are God,s Army. The soldiers of voice and heart that believe in AMERICA for one nation as it stands indivisible with liberty and justice for All. We marched with Dr Martin Luther King and placed our hands upon our hearts as we sang. We knew what was right, what was good and of God. We stand united and strong for we are Right and mighty and proud and in Dr. Martin Luther King,s words, “ WE SHALL OVERCOME.”
CHECK OUT OUR GREAT T SHIRTS... let everyone know where you stand as a real Patriot... and Please go to STEVES WHOLESALE OUTLET... Great bargains on things we all enjoy and need... These purchases will make this RALLY happen.. You help when you buy and you get something great to show for it too.... Thanks and God Bless America
Freedoms first has recently received permission to hold our protest in Washington DC. Our protest will now be held at the lincoln Memorial Reflections Pool in front of the Lincoln memorial ,on a date that will be released on feb 12 2009.
We find this very interesting because just two weeks earlier Washington told us we could no protest in DC for at least a year and a half . But the day the spendulus bill passes we get a call from Washington inviting us with a choice of dates and locations. Folks we take this as a sign that our country if starting to realise the mistake they have made with putting Obama in office.
We will have live speakers and other entertainment for you.
WE would like to see 1 million supporters attend this protest. It is time to take our country back and make our voices heard.
Why are we protesting ?
1. To get the attention of the mainstream media.
2. To demand That Obama Provide proof that he is eligible to be president.
3. To demand that Congress and the Supreme court uphold our constitution.
4. To inform the public on the issue of Obama’s ineligibility to be president of the USA.
5. To demand that they can not take our constitutional rights away.
6. To say no to abortions.
Please take the time to sign up so we have an idea of how many people we have attending and to get update emails so you know what to do , where to meet , where to park and what is happening so on and so forth.
Obama bots say Yes we can... WE are saying.. NO YOU CAN’T !!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your attention and patriotism
Sign up here:
freedomsfirst@inbox.com
.
And if this camp is designed and run by the Dem's? Be careful of what you wish for - you just might get it.
I want/wish for a constitutional amendment establishing a 'No service, No vote' type principle.
Not trying to be argumentative, but this is the type of statement that would fit well on DU.
Funny way to be unagumentative, saying my idea would be a fit a DU.. -- Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.
It is beyond the powers allowed to the government by the Constitution. If you want to change the rules - change the Constitution via the constitutionally required process. Otherwise, please don't advocate for a buearacracy to decide what counts or doesn't count for boot camp,--
Straw man anyone? -- I'm not 'advocating' any such bureaucracy.
-- I'm advocating that we can have a boot camp type training program, [probably run by our military establishment] That would teach constitutional values to our young people, prior to enabling them to vote..
-I agree with this and have been saying this for a long time. Citizenship should be just as hard or harder to get than a driver’s license.
Citizenship is entirely different than voting, imo. Voting is a privilege accorded to citizens in good standing.. And if a citizen is too stupid to understand the principles of our constitution, and honor/defend them, -- no vote.
Also, if you don’t pay any taxes, you don’t get the right to vote.
Bad way to qualify.. Far too many honorable people pay no taxes..
You have to have skin in the game. Voting to limit another person’s rights when you have nothing at risk is another form of tyranny.
Voting to limit another person’s rights is a violation of the 14th amendment. Limitations on another person’s rights can only be placed by due process of [criminal] law.
1)A disastrously unpopular and incompetent Republican administration
2)A downturn in the economy from manipulated markets, orchestrated money market runs, and collapsing mortgage crisis
3)A propaganda campaign by the MSM to install a radical follower of Saul Alinsky in the White House as a Lincolnesque messiah (sold to a dumbed-down electorate)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.