Why Authoritarianism?
Hello, and welcome back to my Minds blog. Today’s topic is authoritarianism. This topic has been making the rounds in discussion lately, and I have been thinking about it over the last week. I want to offer some thoughts on the topic. My regular readers will know that I lean libertarian, and here I will be presenting a case in favor of authoritarianism. So as not to pepper my prose with too many caveats, it is best that I just assume a position as devil’s advocate for the purposes of this post, and I do not necessarily support the ideas that I will present here – nevertheless, I want to give a thoughtful consideration to these ideas, for they deserve such consideration.
What if there’s a crisis?
The issue that has pressed this question into the fore of conversation is the perception that there is a crisis. Even the supposed climate change crisis was intended as an excuse to implement authoritarianism to “save the world” from us horrible humans. But what if there is a crisis? It could be an ongoing invasion that has been aided and abetted from within the nation being invaded, or a moral crisis in which a society is spiraling into chaos, poisoned from within by entrenched, destabilizing forces. It is clear that there is a widespread perception that such a crisis is ongoing, and rather than argue as to the nature and severity of this crisis, for the purposes of this essay we shall assume that such a crisis exists and presents a clear and present danger to our society within a generations’ time.
Will the Will Manifest?
Normal, average people, left to their own devices, are not reliable to perform as required during a crisis, be it an obvious disaster or a looming crisis of the sort that takes place gradually – a crisis such as the one we are assuming. Individuals may or may not respond meaningfully, and to expect them to respond on the whole in a way that will lead to resolution is dubious. Social movements are led by a minority of people – most people are along for the ride. Even in an acute crisis, a few people will generally emerge as leaders, while most either flail or else follow the lead of whoever has the gumption to take charge in the situation.
This question comes to a head when we consider the nature of the crisis that we are assuming – it is gradual, but approaching with great force of near inevitability, and with a constant message from the culture-makers pushing back against any attempt to resist the onslaught of destruction. The population at large is largely complacent, pacified with bread and circuses and a false sense of control through the electoral system, and an ideology promoting hyperindividualism and gratification seeking behavior. Yes, the population at large is slowly waking up to the crisis, but will sufficient will to handle this crisis manifest in time to avert it?
If not, the stakes are dire, for our very legacy is at stake – our inheritance which we owe to our future generations, perhaps our very existence as a people. As things appear at present, the will and unity to take drastic action to reverse the situation is unlikely to manifest spontaneously in leaderless mass, in the public at large. The scattered masses will resist a change of direction or a call to action, wishing to pursue their own idle or selfish whims rather than to take needed, hard actions of their own will to turn our situation from a catastrophe to a workable one with a positive long-term prospect.
Will People Be Convinced By Reason?
I very much like the idea of convincing people through reason and conversation. A person convinced through reason is usually much stronger in their view thus acquired than otherwise, and it could be said that great changes have taken place through this means – but it is a minority of people that are convinced by reason. Most people primarily adopt their worldview through social pressure of their environment. Even people convinced by reason will often hide their views in lieu of pretending to hold the popular opinion, and this resistance to going against popular opinion is why we have the phenomenon of “coming out,” and why it is such a big deal.
Most people will not be convinced by reason. If we rely solely on reason to convince people, in all likelihood our situation will continue to break down, and authority will be asserted to deal with the situation – perhaps in our interest, but probably against it. Of course, we can create culture, utilize mimetics and employ powerful rhetoric, but will this effort alone have the power to manifest the will to truly save our situation? What if we only have a minority of people on our side? It is a minority of people that create social change, but that minority has to wield significant power, either by dominating the media and public discourse, positions in academia and influence with politicians, or by being of sufficient number to agitate not merely as a sideshow, but with the capacity to frighten the public and the political system into compliance to their demands and appeasement.
What If?
Suppose that we accept that we have a crisis on our hands, we have a generation to turn it around or else face dire, long-lasting consequences that will amount to the erasure of our people, our culture, and the numbers needed to be converted will not manifest through reason and evidence. We can choose to die on the altar of abstract principles, accepting our fate, which may very well be subjugation under unfriendly authoritarianism, or we can manifest the will to assert a bid for authoritarianism of our own. Authoritarianism is a scary word for a lot of people, and brings forth all manner of fears about the living a life crushed under tyranny, with secret police lurking around every corner, disappearances at 3 AM, and a constant fear of brutal repression for the slightest misstep.
The fact is that authoritarianism versus liberty is not a binary proposition. In our current state, we neither live under complete authoritarianism nor do we live under complete liberty, so the question need not be considered as if it were a binary, but as an inquiry as to the degree to which authoritarianism may be required to correct the social malady effectively. To simplify the discussion, let’s just propose that we’re talking about a Pinochet type authoritarian regime – that is, a pragmatic regime whose main interest is the general welfare of the majority demographic. This is not central planning in the soviet sense, but rather a re-mix of the mixed economy model that we already live under, as determined under an authoritarian governance structure that reserves the right to physically remove dangerous elements, providing perhaps an ideal structure for dealing with the cultural and demographic crisis swiftly.
Discussions of authoritarian regimes, be they dictatorships or unrestricted monarchy, are often laden with the caveat that they can be great if the dictator or monarch is a benevolent one, but lack protection against the whims of a malevolent dictator or monarch. The reality could easily enough be something in the middle, and so long as they lean on the benevolent side, while they may not be entirely to the liking of even those who largely benefit from their regime, the regime could solve otherwise seemingly intractable problems. We don’t need perfection from this leadership, we need effectiveness. It would undoubtedly involve the violation of some of what we think of as individual rights, and it would certainly go against the will of many of the people – probably roughly half.
If our situation is so dire as some suggest, then it may well be that there are things more important than individual rights or the will of the people just now. I certainly prefer to convince people rather than to force them, but that does not mean that force is never, pragmatically speaking, appropriate for getting things done. As most people tend to just go along until things get really bad – think of Venezuela – this would certainly not require the active suppression of some half of the population. It would rather be targeted at a relatively few political and social actors – again, Pinochet, not Stalin. Such harsh justice may be justified, given the dedication of certain elements within our society to our destruction.
Authoritarianism, thus, isn’t absolute; it comes in degrees. Neither is authoritarianism necessarily forever. Returning to Pinochet, he voluntarily stepped down from his position after 17 years, having twice during his reign held an election to determine whether it was willed that he should remain in command, and the second election returning a “no” vote. Authoritarianism is not necessarily controlling of all areas of life, and by solving problems, most aspects of life could potentially remain more stable on account of an authoritarian regime than under a continuation of the present political status quo – at least for the average member of the beneficiary demographic of that regime. The solving of some problems may involve actions that do not seem fair, and without the authoritarian thrust, who will have the will for such pragmatism?
Finally, we need not think of authoritarianism as being so alien a world to live in. Levels of authoritarianism wax and wane even in the existing democratic structures under which we are governed. People worry about the capriciousness of a dictator, but is it necessarily less predictable than our existing governments, where sweeping, ghastly legislation and policy is regularly implemented without the consultation or even directly against the will of the population? Are the consequences of living under such a regime necessarily less fair, given the existing ideological biases present within our systems and the ways that they manifest to advantage some over others? Do people really have less control over their lives, considering that even in our existing systems certain areas of life are highly regulated under the law? Is it really less changeable, considering the entrenchment of the establishment within our existing regimes, and their effectiveness at manipulating the populace to achieve their ends in spite of opposition?
We like to think that if our democratic governments go bad we can just vote them out, but is it true? How many times have our governments effectively nullified the results of our elections. If one happens to be on the losing end of policy, is it really more justified because it was at the behest of a brainwashed, ignorant, or malevolent “majority” rather than at the behest of an authoritarian governor? Especially when electoral demographics are undemocratically manipulated by politicians on an ongoing basis? Is the supposed democratic vote just a way to buy the complacency of the public at large by offering them the illusion of control? Dictators and kings, too, are beholden to the will of the people, and are compelled to appease them or else suffer insurrection. Depending on the strength and ruthlessness of the regime, it could be as oppressive as a communist regime, but most authoritarians are far less evil than the communists, driven as they are by a thoroughly misanthropic ideology.
Conclusion: Righting the Ship:
This little thought experiment may well deeply offend the sensibilities of my more libertarian minded readers, but it is important to remember that our side in the culture war is essentially composed of an alliance between more authoritarian-minded and more libertarian-minded individuals who have come together under the common perception of a mortal threat to our continued existence present within the status quo. It can be argued that the only moral choice is absolute liberty, but I must disagree when the pursuit of that supposed liberty comes at the cost of our legacy and our future generations. There is a morality that runs far deeper than high-minded notions of non-aggression, and that is the fundamental order of nature and of the fabric of life of which we are a part: ensuring our future, not as individuals, but as a chain of being that is life itself. We owe our ancestors descendants, and we owe our descendants the world.
None of us is yet in a position to determine the rules of the society under which we will live, and it is unlikely that any one of us will. It will be a process of negotiation, a consensus forming between now and when we have the opportunity to realize real power. Rather than unhelpful absolutism, we must recognize that liberty exists on a continuum, and any individual may well feel more tyrannized under the present regime than under a given, more overtly authoritarian one. Besides that, there are winners and losers under all conditions of life, and we owe it to ourselves not to be the losers. With the direction that the world is headed, we may well get authoritarianism whether we like it or not, and it is far better that it be our own than that of the communists or their ilk. For that reason, I think it important to give a fair hearing to the notion of authoritarianism, that we may reach an agreeable consensus on the scope thereof.
I do hope that you have enjoyed this journey down the road to tyranny, and if you have, leave a like (or a dislike, if you really hate it). Let me know what you think in the comments below: are you uncompromising with liberty, or are you unconcerned for it. Does our animal being take precedence over our abstract ideals, or is our higher purpose to transcend our animal being? Can we salvage our situation within the existing regime, or are we too far gone to survive short of drastic measures? If you enjoy my prose, Subscribe. I’ll be back next week with a brand new blog post, and in the meantime, until then, all the best.