Hoffer on Power and Weakness*

I've been reviewing a lot of my old blog posts, and finding many that remain perfectly applicable to our current condition. One of them dates back to June of 2012, and totally hits the mark today, twelve years later.  

Eric Hoffer, the self-educated "Longshoreman Philosopher," is one of my favorite authors. He has a lot to say on a lot of topics, and while I don't agree with him on everything, I nevertheless think he's a brilliant thinker and observer of the human condition.

Hoffer is perhaps best known for his book "The True Believer," in which he discusses the dynamics of fanaticism and the development of mass movements, and explains the appeal of the MAGA movement. Another of his books, "The Passionate State of Mind," contains a passage that directly relates to our current miserable political/religious/social/economic mess:

"It has often been said that power corrupts. But it is perhaps equally important to realize that weakness, too, corrupts. Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are the fruits of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from the sense of their inadequacy and impotence."

The MAGA movement proves the accuracy of this observation every day. People who believe they have no voice in their government and no real power over their future feel weak and powerless, and seek both a scapegoat for their anger and someone they perceive as a strong leader who will do what they cannot do and say what they cannot say. They roar their approval, believing that the crude behavior, intolerance and suspicion given voice by Der Furor lets them "own the libs" and "stick it to the man." As Hoffer reminds us, 

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."

Eric Hoffer wrote his major works in the 1950s, but he would have understood the present time perfectly well.

Have a good day. Don't let yourself be corrupted, whether by power or by weakness. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* This is an update and revision of a post by the same title I published in 2012. Some things don't change.

The Monopoly of Violence

The German historian and sociologist Max Weber, in his 1918 lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” defined the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Political scientists in general tend to accept the fact that one of the defining characteristics of an independent state is the control of armed forces and/or police who alone are authorized to use violence in the state's name.

The importance of the "monopoly of force" or "monopoly of violence" to the state was of great interest as we watched events in Russia unfold last week, when mercenary forces of the Wagner Group under the leadership of Yevgeny Prigozhin marched on Moscow in what appeared to be an abortive coup ... whether against the leadership of the military (as Prigozhin claimed) or against Vladimir Putin himself remains unclear. 

Regardless of the final target, Mr Putin learned a valuable lesson about allowing a private army to operate outside the control of his government.

But Mr Putin wasn't the only one who should have learned a lesson.

Here in the United States, we have a proliferation of armed groups and amateur militias who believe in their right to use violence to implement their interpretation of the Constitution and the law ... the "Proud Boys," the "Oathkeepers," the "Three-Percenters" and others demonstrated their willingness on January 6th, 2021, to use force to overturn an election that didn't produce the results they wanted. These are not the "well-regulated militias" envisioned by the Founders in the Holy Second Amendment (let me hear you say, "halleluja!"), but groups who would impose their vision on you by force. 

What's worrisome about the home-grown militias is that they're not all a bunch of pudgy, bearded, military cosplay Gravy Seals pretending to be heroic figures ... some of them are serious, heavily-armed people with military training who absolutely believe that their freedoms (however they define them, and regardless of yours) are being trampled upon by a tyrannical government, and that they are justified in doing whatever it takes to get the government and the freedoms they want.

A "well-regulated militia" protects the nation and respects the rule of law. The home-grown equivalent of a Wagner Group does not.

Think about that when you cast your votes. 

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The Duty to Protect

The mass murder of nineteen children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24th has generated the usual post-massacre actions: politicians invoke thoughts and prayers for the victims in lieu of addressing the problem; Republicans urge the fielding of more guns to prevent murders using the guns already in use and invoke the need for the mental health care they refuse to fund; Democrats urge increased controls and the banning of certain classes of weapons; and gun enthusiasts and the conservative media wring their collective hands and wail that there's nothing we can do to prevent such mass murders. The general progression of events follows Bilbo's First Law of Temporal Suitability, depicted here:

There is, however, one aspect of the aftermath of the Uvalde massacre that is somewhat different from previous such bloodbaths ... a focus, however fleeting, on the activities of the police who responded to the scene and their delay in taking action to kill the murderer and save at least some of the victims. Some observers have noted that the police were outgunned by the murderer, who was armed with a military-style semiautomatic rifle, and were afraid to rush him until heavier firepower had arrived. The larger story, though, is that the police are not required to protect you.

In 1981, two separate lawsuits were filed against the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police for "negligent failure to provide adequate police services" in that police officers who responded to a 911 call failed to intervene to stop a brutal sexual assault. In the original decision rejecting the lawsuits, the trial judge relied on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The general rule, according to the published decision, is that

"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

The final decision in the appeal of this case (Warren v District of Columbia) upheld the original ruling, with the comment that

"notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal (of the original case)."

But wait ... there's more!

The Supreme Court decided in 2004 in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez that local police were not required to enforce the terms of a restraining order against a man who, ultimately, murdered the children his wife had sought to protect by means of the order. The court's decision included this justification:

"Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband."

Apparently, in lawyer-speak a mother does not have a "property interest" in the safety of her children.

A federal judge also dismissed a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the 2018 mass murder at Margory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 students and staff members were murdered and another 17 were injured. The judge ruled that a "special relationship" did not exist for protection of the students, because schoolchildren are not in a "custodial relationship" with school or law enforcement officials which would require their protection.*

So, riddle me this, Batman: if the police are under no "specific legal duty" to protect you from a crime "absent a special relationship" with you as an individual, why do we have police forces at all? Why does almost every police car in the country have some variation on the slogan "To Protect and Serve" painted on it? 

Are the most extreme zealots of gun rights correct in maintaining that you have to pack maximum iron because only you can protect yourself? Are the "defund the police" zealots of the far left correct in maintaining that the money we spend on heavily-armed police could be better spent on correcting the conditions that make heavily-armed police necessary?

Further, what legally constitutes a "special relationship" between you as an individual and your police department that would establish a "specific legal duty" for that department - paid for by your taxes - to protect you and your family? 

We Americans have always had a tense relationship with our police, because many of us view them almost as an occupying force intent on limiting our rights ... at least until we call upon them for the protection they are not actually obligated to provide. Our black and brown fellow citizens, in particular, have little reason to trust or rely upon police who have all-too-often been guilty of horrific violence and repression against them, often without any significant repercussions.

Do our police have a duty to protect us? The courts say no. I say yes. 

What do you think? I'm anxious in particular to hear the opinion of my friends in the legal profession. I personally think that all the legal hairsplitting in Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v Gonzalez is an indefensible outrage no thinking citizen should accept. But then, what do I know? ... I'm just an outraged, curmudgeonly linguist who thinks that police really should protect us, even at the risk of their own lives. After all, if they're not willing to protect the innocent, perhaps they should seek safer employment.

Have a good day. Be outraged.

More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

* I can't make this stuff up.

Who Are You Calling a Fascist?

In today's superheated, thought-inhibited and fact-challenged political arena, we often think of people and ideas in terms of simplistic bumper stickers - "Crooked Hillary" and "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco," "Stronger Together" and "Make America Great Again." Bumper stickers are what we employ in lieu of things like reason and thought, particularly when we either refuse to believe unpleasant facts or choose simply to ignore them.

One of the bumper sticker words frequently used to describe Donald Trump and his most fervent supporters is fascist. Trump supporters object to this as an example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum* logical fallacy; however, it can be a perfectly valid comparison when viewed in a historical context.

First, a bit of linguistic history: the words fascism and fascist come from the Latin word fasces, a bundle of rods around an axe that served as a symbol of authority for imperial Roman magistrates. It represented imperial strength (a bundle of rods is stronger than a single one) and their power to impose corporal and capital punishment -

I've been thinking about the idea of Donald Trump as a fascist in the historical context for a while, but this article by Michael Kinsley sums up the argument better than I could. Along with Mr Kinsley's article - which you should read carefully - consider a few of the many definitions of fascism:

From the Business Dictionary: “(A) Political ideology that imposes strict social and economical measures as a method of empowering the government and stripping citizens of rights. This authoritative system of government is usually headed by an absolute dictator who keeps citizens suppressed via acts of violence and strict laws that govern the people. The most noted form of Fascism was implemented under Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, who both stripped citizens of their rights and maintained strict regimes that resulted in the deaths of thousands of humans. Some of the defining characteristics of fascism are: (1) racism, (2) militarism, (3) dictatorship, and (4) destructive nationalistic policies."

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “(1) A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (2) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

From Wikipedia: “Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.”

One of the defining aspects of historical fascism is the merging of government and corporate economic power. Such a merging is obvious in the incoming Trump administration on many levels - for one, Mr. Trump's own enormous business holdings, which are far from transparent and from which he has thus far declined to view as potential conflicts of interest. Consider also the number of corporate titans he has nominated to Cabinet positions, with the argument that they are highly successful world-class businessmen who have run highly successful companies.

With all due respect to Mr. Trump**, the federal government is not a business venture. It requires leaders who can skillfully manage huge and complex bureaucracies, but it is not a money-making enterprise driven by a profit motive and a need to financially reward it's shareholders. Government at every level exists to serve the needs of its citizens - all of its citizens, not just big business and the wealthy. The citizens are the ultimate shareholders of the government, and they have a right to expect leaders who place the safety and economic well-being of the average American above the normal, ruthlessly hard-eyed business concerns of profit and loss. This is not to say that government at any level should be run without concern for the bottom line, but it does reflect what ought to be the fundamental principle of good government as understood by traditional conservatives: prudent management of the minimum resources required by the smallest government organization capable of providing the services demanded by the shareholders (in this case, the citizens).

Some will argue that active government support of business promotes economic growth, job creation, and increased tax revenue. I'm not sure that this has been proven out in practice, particularly the part about increased tax revenues. For instance, Mr. Trump has bragged about his success in preventing the Carrier Corporation from moving some jobs (the exact number is unclear) to Mexico ... but part of the agreement featured millions of dollars in tax advantages for the company. If Carrier isn't paying those taxes, who is?***

Beyond the immediate concerns of mixing corporate boardroom issues with governance and diplomacy, consider some of the other aspects of fascism listed in the Business Dictionary definition quoted above:

Racism. I personally believe that this has become a meaningless pejorative used to shut down legitimate discussion serious issues, particularly when used by those on the political left. This does not mean that there are not serious social issues in which race is a factor, but stifling discussion by loudly labeling a person as a racist rather than engaging in rational discussion aimed at changing their views does nothing more than cement already bad attitudes. While I don't believe that Donald Trump himself is a racist or white supremacist, it's clear that his campaign deliberately pushed buttons with racial overtones and interpretations, and his failure immediately and decisively to shut down his most radical and potentially violent supporters is a troubling analogy to the politics of the 1920s and 30s^†.

Militarism. While it's not militaristic per se, consider that Mr. Trump has nominated an almost unprecedented number of former general officers to high positions, including Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor. While they may be capable individuals, their nomination is concerning when viewed against the American tradition of civilian control of the military. By the way, considering that Mr Trump has described American generals as "embarrassing," and said they had been "reduced to rubble," he seems to be okay with appointing them to high government positions. He has also made very bellicose comments about many actual and potential enemies ... except Russia, which he seems to like.

Dictatorship. Remember that Mr Trump is the candidate who listed all the things he thought were wrong with America and then said "I alone can fix it." He claims to know more about ISIS than the military professionals who have been fighting it daily for years. He blithely ignores the conclusions of the Intelligence Community, even to the extent of not receiving daily intelligence update briefings. He has advocated limits on free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly, and complains bitterly when he receives critical news coverage. From his lofty perch, he fires off crude Twitter attacks against individual Americans. While he never directly incited violence during the presidential campaign, his careless language arguably inspired others to commit acts of violence they believed were now acceptable. All this does not make him a dictator - but it makes him worth watching carefully.

Destructive Nationalistic Policies. While Americans have a right to expect that their president will put American interests first in any international negotiations, it's worth remembering that every other country wants to put its interests first in the same way. Negotiation is not conducted by threats and bluster, but by a search for an outcome that balances the legitimate needs of both parties. When Mr. Trump advocates tearing up or renegotiating existing trade treaties and slapping large tariffs on foreign goods, he tells other countries that he's not interested in negotiation, but in capitulation. When he advocates denying admission to the country to every member of a particular religion, he tells the world that America has turned its back on one of its most cherished freedoms - freedom of worship. Such policies are destructive both to America's prosperity and to its moral standing.

And so, yes, I believe Donald Trump is a classic fascist. I can only hope that better men and women than he wake up and recognize it before it's too late.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Also known as "Godwin's Law" - "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1." In other words, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler and the Nazis.

** And, sadly, that isn't much.

*** Hint - it's you.

† If you think this is a Reductio ad Hitlerum analogy, so be it.