HARVARD HISTORY PROFESSOR Harvey Mansfield said after Barack Hussein Obama's reelection victory in November 2012 that Americans were voting "for dependency, for lack of ambition, and for insolvency."
He was right on the diagnosis. But his optimistic prescription? From my declinist perspective, I see it as wishful thinking.
Mr. Mansfield's interview -- Sohrab Ahmari, "The Crisis of American Self-Government," wsj.com, November 30, 2012 (emphasis added) -- is well worth rereading.
Partly his isolation on campus has to do with the nature of Mr. Mansfield's scholarship. At a time when his colleagues are obsessed with trendy quantitative methods and even trendier "identity studies," Mr. Mansfield holds steadfast to an older tradition that looks to the Western canon as the best guide to human affairs. For him, Greek philosophy and the works of thinks such as Machiavelli and Tocqueville aren't historical curiosities; Mr. Mansfield sees writers grappling heroically with political and moral problems that are timeless and universally relevant.
The next paragraph is Mr. Mansfield's description of what fellow intellectual Rush Limbaugh calls "low-information voters."
Consider voting. "You can count voters and votes," Mr. Mansfield says. "And the political science does that a lot, and that's very useful because votes are fact countable. One counts for one. But if we get serious about what it means to vote, we immediately go to the notion of an informed voter. And if you get serious about that, you go all the way to voting as a wise choice. That would a true voter. The others are all lesser voters, or even not voting at all. They're just indicating a belief, or a whim, but not making a wise choice. That's probably because they're not wise.
By that measure, the electorate that granted Barack Obama a second term was unwise -- the president achieved "a sneaky victory," Mr. Mansfield says. "The Democrats said absolutely nothing about their plans for the future. All they did was attack the other side. Obama's campaign consisted entirely of say 'I'm on you side' to the American people, to those in the middle. No matter what comes next, this silence about the future is ominous.
In response to Mr. Mansfield, the Mr. Obama remained silent about what he was going to do because if he had said forthrightly what he wanted to do, he would have lost the election. A sneaky victory was the only kind he could win.
At one level Mr. Obama's silence reveals the exhaustion of the progressive agenda, of which his presidency is the spiritual culmination. Mr. Mansfield says. That movement "depends on the idea that thing will get better and progress will be made in the actualization of equality." It is telling, then, that during the 2012 campaign progressives were "confined to defending what they've already achieved or making small improvements -- student loans, free condoms. The Democrats are the party of free condoms. That's typical for them.
But Democrats' refusal to address the future in positive terms, he adds, also reveals the party's intent to create "an entitlement or welfare state that takes issues off the bargaining table and renders them above politics." The end goal, Mr. Mansfield worries, is to sideline the American constitutional tradition in favor of "a practical constitution consisting of progressive measures the left has passed that cannot be revoked. And that is what would be fixed in our political system -- not the Constitution."
It is an project begun at the turn of the previous century by "an alliance of experts and victims," Mr. Mansfield says. "Social scientists and political scientists were very much involved in the foundation of the progressive movement. What those experts did was find ways to improve the well-being of the poor, the incompetent, all those who have the right to vote but can't quite govern their own lives. And still to this day we see in the Democratic Party this alliance between Ph.D.s and victims."
The Obama campaign's dissection of the public into subsets of race, sex and class resentments is a case in point. "Victims come in different kinds," says Mr. Mansfield, "so they're treated differently. You push different buttons to get them to react."
The threat to self-government is clear. "The American founders wanted people to live under the Constitution," Mr. Mansfield says. "But the progressives want the Constitution to live under the American people."
The young Harvey Mansfield was a New Deal liberal.
"I broke with the liberals over the communist issue," he says. "My initiating forces were anticommunism and my perception that Democrats were soft on communism, to use a rather unpleasant phrase from the time -- unpleasant but true." He also began to question the progressive project at home: "I saw the frailties of big government exposed, one after another. Everyone they tried didn't work and in fact made us worse off by making us dependent on an engine that was getting weaker and weaker."
He was influenced in the 1960s by German-American philosopher Leo Strauss.
Strauss had studied ancient Greek texts, which emphasized among other things that "within democracy there is good and bad, free and slave," and "that democracy can produce a slavish mind and a slavish country." The political task before every generation, Mr. Mansfield understood, is to "defend the good kind of democracy. And to do that you have to be aware of human differences and inequalities, especially of intellectual inequalities.
American elites today prefer to dismiss the "unchangeable, undemocratic fasts" about human inequality, he says. Progressives go further: "They think that the main use of liberty is to create more inequality. They don't see that there is such a thing as too much equality. They don't see the limits to democratic equalizing" -- how, say, wealth redistribution can not only bankrupt the public fisc but [can also] corrupt the national soul.
"Americans take inequality for granted," Mr. Mansfield says. The American people frequently "protect inequalities by voting not to destroy or deprive the rich of their riches. They don't vote for all measures of equalization, for which they get condemned as suffering from false consciousness. But that's true consciousness because the American people want to make democracy work, and so do conservatives. . . .
Equality untempered by liberty invites disaster, he says. "There is a difference between making a form of government more like itself," Mr. Mansfield says, "and making it viable." Pushed to its extremes, democracy can lead to "mass rule by an ignorant, or uncaring, government."
Consider the entitlements crisis. "Entitlements are an attack on the common good," Mr. Mansfield says. "Entitlements say that 'I get mine not matter what the state of the country is when I get it.' So it's like a bond or an annuity. What the entitlement does is give the government version of a private security, which is better because the government provides a better guarantee than a private company can."
That is, until the government goes broke, as has occurred across Europe.
"The Republicans should want to recover the notion of the common good," Mr. Mansfield says. "One way to do that is to show that we can't afford the entitlements as they are -- that we've always underestimated the cost. 'Cost' is just an economic word for the common good. And if Republicans can get entitlements to be understood as no longer irrevocable but as open to negotiation and to political dispute and to reform, then I think they can accomplish something."
Mr. Mansfield is, of course, right in principle. But as a practical matter Republicans can't or won't "get entitlements to be understood." First, most lack the courage. Second, many favor the entitlements. And third, they believe -- and are right to believe -- that a thoroughgoing attack on entitlement culture is political suicide. That's because the old America that understands the danger is dying away and being replaced by a new America miseducated by the Ph.D.s who are on the wrong side of the proposition.
We declinists stumble on Mr. Mansfields big word: if in if Republicans can get entitlements to be understood." Too many folks have bought into the entitlement culture and too many folks are in the entitlement culture. The takers now outnumber the makers. That can't be undone.
In this next paragraph, Mr. Mansfield tries to square the circle, but he does so with abstractions, not a practical program.
Then there is the matter of conservative political practice. "Conservatives should be the party of judgment, not just principles," he says. "Of course there are conservative principles -- free markets, family values, a strong national defense -- but those principles must be defended with the use of good judgment. Conservatives need to be intelligent, and they shouldn't use their principles as substitutes for intelligence. Principles need to be there so judgment can be distinguished from opportunism. But just because you give ground on principle doesn't mean you're an opportunist.
Nor should flexibility mean abandoning major components of the conservative agenda -- including cultural values -- in response to a momentary political defeat. "Democrats have their cultural argument, which is the attack on the rich and the uncaring," Mr. Mansfield says. "So Republicans need their cultural arguments to oppose the Democrats', to say that goodness or justice in our country is not merely the transfer of resources to the poor and vulnerable. We have to take measures to teach the poor and vulnerable to become a little more independent and to prize independence, and not just live on a government check. That means self-government within each self, and where are you going to get that except with morality, responsibility and religion?"
Unca D is a pessimist about this, but Mr. Mansfield is not.
So is it still possible to pull back from the brink of America's Europeanization? Mr. Mansfield is optimistic. "The material for recovery is there," he says. "Ambition, for one thing. I teach at a university where all the students are ambitious. They all want to do something with their lives." That is in contrast to students he has met in Europe, where "it is depressing to see young people with small ambitions, very cultivated and intelligent people so stunted." He adds with a smile: "Our other main resource is the Constitution."
Constitution? He must be referring to that thing America has largely abandoned or misused over the past century -- a department of education? ? the Supreme Court micromanaging state laws on virtually everything? really? -- and that Barack Hussein Obama and his crew, sensing little objection from the rest of us, has wadded and thrown into the corner. Under the Constitution, he cannot ignore laws he dislikes and make up and enforce new ones Congress has the bad manners to refuse to enact. But he does it, to much applause from elites, including the ambitious young folks who attend Harvard.
Comments