Managerial state

Last updated

The "managerial state" is a concept used in critiquing modern procedural democracy.[ ambiguous ] The concept is used largely, though not exclusively, in paleolibertarian, paleoconservative, and anarcho-capitalist critiques of late modern state power in Western democracies. [1] [ additional citation(s) needed ] Theorists Samuel T. Francis and Paul Gottfried, developing ideas inspired by the analytical framework of James Burnham, [2] say this is an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority.[ citation needed ]

Contents

Variations on the concept include the therapeutic managerial state, welfare–warfare state, [3] administrative state, [4] and polite or soft totalitarianism. [5] There is significant overlap between the concepts of the managerial state and the deep state, with theorists of the managerial state additionally drawing from theories of political religion and the secularization of Christian concepts, namely Puritanism, [6] [ additional citation(s) needed ] which they contend demand an overweening concern with government intervention in favor of social justice, unaccountable regulation of citizens' private lives, and both informally and formally enforced political correctness. [7] [ need quotation to verify ][ additional citation(s) needed ]

Theorists of the managerial state claim this constellation of factors tends towards the efflux of totalitarianism, which they call soft totalitarianism [8] and engage in criticism of administrative law and rulemaking. [9]

Samuel T. Francis, following James Burnham, said that under this historical process, “law is replaced by administrative decree, federalism is replaced by executive autocracy, and a limited government replaced by an unlimited state.” [10] It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as freedom, equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.

Overview

Definition

Paul Gottfried, in After Liberalism, defines this worldview as a "series of social programs informed by a vague egalitarian spirit, and it maintains its power by pointing its finger accusingly at antiliberals." [11] He calls it a new theocratic religion. In this view, when the managerial regime cannot get democratic support for its policies, it resorts to sanctimony and social engineering, via programs, court decisions and regulations.

In a more general way, Joseph Sobran argues that technology and false notions of progress give people a false sense of autonomy:

C.S. Lewis remarked that every increase in man's power over nature can turn out to mean an increase in the power of some men over others, with nature as its instrument. Given technological progress, we need to fight hard to retain our clarity about the nature and rights of human beings, or we face what Lewis called "the abolition of man." Abortion and totalitarianism both represent new possibilities of some men's power over others, and both are defended by certain ideologies of "progress." We hear of human "autonomy" and of man's "control of his own destiny." But the autonomy is enjoyed by a select (or self-selected) few, and the control is exercised by a shrinking elite; those who are powerless, whether unborn children or the subjects of a totalist dictatorship, simply don't count. [12]

Thomas Fleming argues that the managerial problem extends to issues of war, peace and international order:

I prefer the old Adam of strife and carnage to the new Prometheus of peace and human rights. Better a world torn apart by Husseins and Qaddafis, better a war to the knife between the PLO and the Likud Party, between Zulus and Afrikaaners, than a world run by George Balls and Dag Hammarskjölds, because a world made safe for democracy is a world in which no one dares to raise his voice for fear that mommy will put you away some place where you can be reeducated." [13]

Anarchy and tyranny

Samuel Francis argued that the problems of managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word “anarcho-tyranny” into the paleoconservative vocabulary. [14] Francis argued that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe but especially the UK. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy) and the UK has a history of this and it continues to this day. He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny. [14]

Other paleos have expanded upon Francis’ original idea. Paleolibertarian Lew Rockwell extended it to foreign policy, saying that the U.S. military unleashed this condition on the Iraqis. [15] Fleming argues that the breakdown of the American system leaves a "country with a civilized elite class sitting on top of a powder-keg of anarchic welfare-dependents who can defy the government." This gives "encouragement to our own domestic rabble," endangering Middle America:

Does anyone remember the Rodney King riots? Watts? What happens every time a big city wins or loses a Superbowl [sic] or NBA championship? The next time you are in a large crowd – at a downtown pop concert or metro station – look around and imagine how many people on the street, if the lights went out and the cops disappeared, would be pulling the gold fillings out of the teeth in your dead body. [16]

Jerry Pournelle provides his own variation on this theme:

We do not live by rule of law, because no one can possibly go a day without breaking one or another of the goofy laws that have been imposed on us over the years. No one even knows all the laws that apply to almost anything we do now. We live in a time of selective enforcement of law. [17]

Francis argues that anarcho-tyranny is built into the managerial system and cannot be solved simply by fighting corruption or voting out incumbents. In fact, he says that the system generates a false “conservatism” that encourages people to act passively in the face of perpetual revolution. He concludes that only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored. [14]

In addition, Thomas Fleming describes anarcho-tyranny as "law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus." [18] He suggests stoicism as a survival skill. He wrote,

the only response to this regime is to follow the boxing referee's advice: protect yourself at all times… The only freedom we have is the moral freedom that even ancient slaves enjoyed. Read Epictetus. [18]

Criticism of the center-right

Gottfried says paleoconservatives show contempt for the modern state, "not as an energizing force but as a leveling and homogenizing instrument." [19] Conversely, he says mainstream conservatives no longer challenge the managerial system, except at the extremes. For example, decades of activism rolled back neither the New Deal nor the Great Society. He argues that classical conservatives wanted "traditional hierarchical society and a state that assumed the existing social arrangements," both of which today’s center-right rejects and condemns, while reinforcing “Western self-hate and self-indulgence.” [20] [21] He writes:

A political and cultural war has been fought and largely won by the social left against gender stereotyping and the nuclear family. Gay/lesbian and abortion rights, together with a powerful centralized administration enforcing them, are taken for granted by most members of Congress. Opposition to quotas and to the media's bashing of white males increasingly has become restricted to the political fringe. Only extremists now call for a debate on further immigration, which Beltway conservatives avoid bringing up lest they seem insensitive. [22]

Gottfried also argues that the democratic center-right, such as the GOP, is not a restraining force against the managerial state. He says that such political leaders espouse a dubious moderation and accommodate the Left, while treating traditional conservative positions as political liabilities.

The center-right has gradually embraced most of the Left’s historical positions but has merely restated them with apparent moderation, for example, by rallying to the original, less radicalized form of feminism, by advocating an extensive welfare state with lower marginal tax rates, and by praising Martin Luther King while lying about his endorsement of racial quotas.... Equally important, if the "conservative movement" were as concerned about small-government as it is about waging global democratic wars, it might be influencing public opinion accordingly. Movement conservative leaders and the Republican Party have opted for big government and leftist missionary wars but not because of public demand. Rather they have worked long and hard to manufacture a demand for their interests. [23]

In addition, Samuel Francis argued that since the center-right and center-left refuse to deal with major civilizational issues, they reduce domestic political debates to narrow economic issues. This preoccupation views human beings as “resources” and treats them like inanimate objects. [24] Using a phrase from Peter Drucker, he says this

reflects the myth of Economic Man – that human beings are mainly or entirely economic in their motivations and that therefore the business of America is business, even if it takes the federal leviathan to conduct it or regulate it. [25]

Analysis

Criticism

In his essay Second Thoughts on James Burnham, George Orwell summarises Burnham's ideas in The Managerial Revolution and The Machiavellians and highlights inconsistencies. Orwell concludes that Burnham may be right in identifying a general drift towards oligarchy with the concentration of industrial and financial power, and the development of the managerial/technical class. However Orwell concludes that Burnham's major error is in seeing this trend as continuing. In doing so, Burham makes two erroneous assumptions; that "Politics is essentially the same in all ages" and "Political behaviour is different from other kinds of behaviour." Orwell refutes these assumptions and notes that just as Nazism had smashed itself to pieces, so the Russian regime will destroy itself. "The huge, invincible, everlasting slave empire of which Burnham appears to dream will not be established, or if established, will not endure." Furthermore, Orwell identifies Burnham's critique of managerial state to unveil a sort of 'power-worship', stating that "it is not surprising that Burnham's world view should often be noticeably close to that of the American imperialists on the one side, or to that of the isolationists on the other. It is a 'tough' or 'realistic' world-view which fits in with the American form of wish-thinking." [26]

According to Christopher Hitchens, "Orwell was one of the very few commentators to see the sinister influence of [Burnham's] preachings, and subject these to a critique which greatly nettled Burnham himself." [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anarcho-capitalism</span> Political philosophy and economic theory

Anarcho-capitalism is an anti-statist, libertarian political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies, the non-aggression principle, free markets and self-ownership, which extends the concept to include control of private property as part of the self. In the absence of statute, anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through participation in the free market, which they describe as a voluntary society involving the voluntary exchange of goods and services. In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies and/or insurance companies selected by customers, which would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police.

Paleoconservatism is a political philosophy and strain of conservatism in the United States stressing American nationalism, Christian ethics, regionalism, and traditionalist conservatism. Paleoconservatism's concerns overlap with those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s as well as with paleolibertarianism and right-wing populism.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, or Mises Institute, is a nonprofit think tank headquartered in Auburn, Alabama, that is a center for radical libertarian thought and the right-wing paleolibertarian and anarcho-capitalist movements in the United States. It is named after the economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) and promotes heterodox Misesian Austrian economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Gottfried</span> American political philosopher (born 1941)

Paul Edward Gottfried is an American paleoconservative political philosopher, historian, and writer. He is a former Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania. He is editor-in-chief of the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles. He is an associated scholar at the Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank, and the US correspondent of Nouvelle École, a Nouvelle Droite journal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Burnham</span> American philosopher (1905–1987)

James Burnham was an American philosopher and political theorist. He chaired the New York University Department of Philosophy; his first book was An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (1931). Burnham became a prominent Trotskyist activist in the 1930s. He later rejected Marxism and became an even more influential theorist of the political right as a leader of the American conservative movement. His book The Managerial Revolution, published in 1941, speculated on the future of capitalism. Burnham was an editor and a regular contributor to William F. Buckley's conservative magazine National Review on a variety of topics. He rejected containment of the Soviet Union and called for the rollback of communism worldwide.

Samuel Todd Francis, known as Sam Francis, was an American columnist and writer known for his paleoconservative and white nationalist views. He was a columnist and editor for the conservative Washington Times until he was dismissed after making racist remarks at the 1995 American Renaissance conference. Francis would later become a "dominant force" on the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist organization identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Francis was chief editor of the council's newsletter, Citizens Informer, until his death in 2005.

Paleolibertarianism is a libertarian political activism strategy aimed at uniting libertarians and paleoconservatives. It was developed by American anarcho-capitalist theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell in the American political context after the end of the Cold War. From 1989 to 1995, they sought to communicate libertarian notions of opposition to government intervention using messages accessible to working and middle-class people of the time, and combining libertarian free market views with the cultural conservatism of Paleoconservatism, while also opposing protectionism. The strategy also embraced the paleoconservative reverence for tradition and religion. This approach, usually identified as right-wing populism, was intended to radicalize citizens against the state. The name they chose for this style of activism evoked the roots of modern libertarianism, hence the prefix paleo. That founding movement was American classical liberalism, which shared the anti-war and anti-New Deal sentiments of the Old Right in the first half of the 20th century. Paleolibertarianism is generally seen as a right-wing ideology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iron law of oligarchy</span> Political theory developed by Robert Michels

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory first developed by the German-born Italian sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of the organization.

<i>The Road to Serfdom</i> Book by Friedrich von Hayek

The Road to Serfdom is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian-British economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek. Since its publication in 1944, The Road to Serfdom has been popular among liberal and conservative thinkers, and remains referenced in modern discourse. It has been translated into more than 20 languages and sold over two million copies. The book was first published in Britain by Routledge in March 1944, during World War II, and was quite popular, leading Hayek to call it "that unobtainable book", also due in part to wartime paper rationing. It was published in the United States by the University of Chicago Press in September 1944 and achieved great popularity. At the arrangement of editor Max Eastman, the American magazine Reader's Digest published an abridged version in April 1945, enabling The Road to Serfdom to reach a wider non-academic audience.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Sobran</span> American political commentator (1946–2010)

Michael Joseph Sobran Jr. was a paleoconservative American journalist. He wrote for the National Review magazine and was a syndicated columnist. During the 1970s, he frequently used the byline M. J. Sobran.

Right-libertarianism, also known as libertarian capitalism, right-wing libertarianism, or colloquially as libright is a libertarian political philosophy that supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. The term right-libertarianism is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, right-libertarianism supports free-market capitalism. Like most forms of libertarianism, it supports civil liberties, especially natural law, negative rights, the non-aggression principle, and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.

Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism are two major branches of the American conservative political movement. Representatives of each faction often argue that the other does not represent true conservatism. Disputed issues include immigration, trade, the United States Constitution, taxation, budget, business, the Federal Reserve, drug policy, foreign aid and the foreign policy of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libertarian conservatism</span> Ideology combining conservatism with libertarianism

Libertarian conservatism, also referred to as conservative libertarianism and conservatarianism, is a political and social philosophy that combines conservatism and libertarianism, representing the libertarian wing of conservatism and vice versa.

Articles in social and political philosophy include:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights, liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.

Inverted totalitarianism is a system where economic powers like corporations exert subtle but substantial power over a system that superficially seems democratic. Over time, this system can foster a sense of powerlessness and political apathy, continuing a slide away from political egalitarianism.

"Second Thoughts on James Burnham" is an essay, first published in May 1946 in Polemic, by the English author George Orwell. The essay discusses works written by James Burnham, an American political theorist.

The Libertarian Party in the United States is composed of various factions, sometimes described as left and right, although many libertarians reject use of these terms to describe the political philosophy.

<i>Why Liberalism Failed</i> 2018 book by Patrick Deneen

Why Liberalism Failed is a 2018 book by Patrick Deneen, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. It criticizes both forms of American liberalism – "classical liberalism," typically called in America "libertarianism"; and "progressive/modern liberalism," often simply called "liberal."

References

  1. ↑ Beauchamp, Zack (December 14, 2022). "The 80-year-old book that explains Elon Musk and tech's new right-wing tilt". Vox. Retrieved December 15, 2022.
  2. ↑ Burnham, The Managerial Revolution, passim; Burnham, The Machiavellians: defenders of freedom, pp. 41–109),
  3. ↑ Matt Barganier, The Welfare-Warfare State, Old West Edition, AntiWar, June 28, 2005.
  4. ↑ Hamburger, The Administrative Threat (Encounter Books): Introduction
  5. ↑ Nicholas Strakon, Who we are; what we're up to: Introducing The Last Ditch, Dispatches from "The Last Ditch," at Thorn Walker, September 1994.
  6. ↑ Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: toward a secular theocracy, 161–63
  7. ↑ Francis, Leviathan and its Enemies, 354ff, 602–19; see Gottfried infra
  8. ↑ Welchman, ed. Religions of Politics/Politics of Religion (Springer), esp contributions by Champagne (ch 8) and Critchley and Welchman (ch 11); Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: towards a secular theocracy, passim; Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed ch 'The Puritan Exodus'
  9. ↑ Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Legal?, pp x–xiv, 531–45
  10. ↑ Sam Francis. Archived June 16, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ Gottfried, Paul Edward (1999). After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State. New forum. Vol. 18. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 5. ISBN   978-1-40082289-8 . Retrieved 24 December 2017.
  12. ↑ Joseph Sobran, 1983, "Foreword", Single Issues (Human Life Press), at Sobran's: The Real News of the Month.
  13. ↑ Thomas Fleming, "Further Reflections on Violence," Chronicles, November 1990, p. 15.
  14. 1 2 3 Chronicles Magazine. Archived September 28, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Anarcho-Tyranny in Baghdad, LewRockwell.com, April 12, 2003.
  16. ↑ Chronicles Magazine. Archived September 27, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ Jerry E. Pournelle, Anarcho-Tyranny, JerryPournelle.com, July 28, 2003.
  18. 1 2 Chronicles Magazine. Archived September 27, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  19. ↑ Conservative Movement, p. 153.[ full citation needed ]
  20. ↑ “After three decades, has the conservative movement triumphed?” Insight on the News, March 22, 1999.
  21. ↑ See, for example, Gottfried’s "Solid Scholarship Undergirds Buchanan's Sober Predictions," Insight on the News, March 11, 2002.
  22. ↑ Gottfried, "Solid Scholarship" (see above).
  23. ↑ Paul Gottfried, They Have No Choice, LewRockwell.com, February 17, 2006.
  24. ↑ “Immigration: The Republican taboo,” The Washington Times, May 30, 1995.
  25. ↑ “ Bipartisan loser for GATT,” The Washington Times, December 2, 1994.
  26. ↑ Michael Shelden Orwell: The Authorized Biography. HarperCollins. 1991. Page 475 ISBN   0-06-016709-2.
  27. ↑ Hitchens, Christopher (2002). Why Orwell Matters. New York: Basic Books. p. 40. ISBN   978-0-465-03050-7.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.