Jesse Walker on Marina and "Red-State Fascism"
Jesse Walker has some thoughtful things to say on the discussion here about Lew Rockwell's article on"Red-State Fascism."
comments powered by Disqus
Kenneth R Gregg - 1/4/2005
As you said, "[m]aybe the fact that the major industrialized countries are democratic means that the ideologies in power will tend to be more shallow, as they must be available for "mass consumption"."
You have a point here. One of the more interesting aspects of Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" is his analysis of high time preferences in democratic nations as opposed to other forms. He contraposes monarchies to democracies on this point, but I do see a similar contraposition between democratic states and natural republics founded upon proprietary systems (individual/natural rights). I recall some discussions by A.J. Galambos on this matter and may be in one of his published books.
Certainly a significant matter of concern would be building a durable, sustainable social structure where "rule of law" means more than "whatever we can convince a majority of the electorate to support."
Just a thought.
K D Vallier - 1/3/2005
The following comment of Walker's is worth some comment:
"What Rockwell didn't mention, and perhaps doesn't see, is that the same dynamic is now at work on the left. If the Bob Barr conservatives (and, further out, the militia conservatives) have been tamed or marginalized by Team Red, then the Ralph Nader leftists (and, further out, the Seattle leftists) are being tamed or marginalized by Team Blue. The chief instrument of this shift has been an excessive focus on George W. Bush, just as the other rebellion was hobbled by an excessive focus on Bill Clinton. Again, there's nothing wrong with Bush-bashing per se, but not if you lose your perspective."
How does on avoid this sort of absorption of ideology? Is there any general way for a group of people to avoid having their political movement of choice become a cult of personality? Obviously groups of people have avoided it before, right? The classical liberals and the Marxists were able to do this over long stretches of time.
What is the difficulty now? Is it that the ideologies involved aren't very deep or well-developed, and so tend to break due to their shallowness?
Maybe the fact that the major industrialized countries are democratic means that the ideologies in power will tend to be more shallow, as they must be available for "mass consumption". Perhaps democratic demagoguery would work against complex systems of thought like libertarianism, that pays close attention to subtle distinctions. I have no idea, but I'd be interested to hear the speculation of others.