Interview: Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift

posted at 6:08 pm on April 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

We often talk about American exceptionalism and the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, and worry about whether we have lost sight of what gave us that exceptional place in human history. This afternoon, I had the pleasure to speak with Hillsdale College’s Professor Paul Rahe, who has written a new book, Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect.

Not only did we discuss Rahe’s book, we also discussed the differences between the French and American revolutions, and how elitism replaced aristocracy there — and how it threatens to replace federalism and self-government here. Rahe offers suggestions for reversing a century-old trend towards soft despotism, and predicts that momentum may develop for such action sooner rather than later. More Tea Parties, anyone?

From the press release:

If we are ever to bring this process to a halt, if we are to put a stop to the advance of the administrative state and even roll it back, if we are to recover the liberty that once was ours, if we are to refuse to be subjects and reassert ourselves as citizens, we must first come to understand what it is that has occasioned centralized administration’s inexorable march. To achieve such an understanding, Paul A. Rahe, argues in his new book—Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect—we must re-examine the character of modern, commercial republicanism. We must consider with care Montesquieu’s celebrated account of the English constitution. We must ponder why he thought this “republic disguised as a monarchy” superior to the republics of classical antiquity and the monarchies of his own day; we must ruminate on his account of the political psychology dominant within it; and we must assess his judgment regarding that polity’s fragility. Then, we must consider Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s searing critique of bourgeois society, explore its foundations, and do justice to its force. And, finally, in this light, we must digest the argument advanced in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, assess the ffectiveness of his response to the warnings issued by Montesquieu and Rousseau, examine his fears regarding the trajectory of France, and reconsider the grounds for his positive assessment of the role played by local self-government, civic associations, an unfettered press, Biblical religion, and marital solidarity in Jacksonian America. Only when we have done this, Rahe argues, only when we have fully grasped the psychological foundations of modern democracy’s seemingly inexorable drift in the direction of soft despotism, will we be in a position to devise policies consistent with a genuine reversal of course.

The book gets its release tomorrow, and sounds well worth adding to your bookshelves. I hope you enjoy the interview as much as I did.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

That link from the Jester site is verrrry interesting. I suppose the powers that be could be playing dumb and saying we think they acted alone so other conspirators aren’t put on notice.

mikeyboss on April 23, 2013 at 11:29 AM

were motivated by religion

Are they sure it wasn’t a Ben Affleck movie?

RadClown on April 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The one guy — a boxer, no advanced education. The other guy, a pothead college student, no technical education.

The difficult part is (a) detonator and (b) radio control of detonation. Would appear difficult, yes? Apparently not. The info is readily available on the interwebs. Like here. If you can use Google, then read and look at pictures, yes you can create a remote detonator out of toy parts.

Welcome to the 21st century.

SunSword on April 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM

SunSword on April 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Yep. And even that example is overly complicated.

stvnscott on April 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Here’s the real problem believing these two did this alone.

Where?

Tamerlan had his wife and mother living with him. So the wife has to be an accomplice. I wouldn’t doubt the mother is.

Jahar had several roommates. Some of these winners are being arrested and released, rinse repeat.

Neither had a job that provided the workspace.

So to believe no one else was involved, means they bought the supplies just a few days before and built it that morning, during the race. With no training or testing.

Along with the other IED’s.

And several guns.

And hundreds of rounds.

Just got it all over the weekend.

The Feds are lying that no one else was involved. Whatever statement Jahar gave them fit their needs.

Hell, he could have said yes to a question that asked “was anyone else involved with the Marathon bombing”?

That’s totally different than “Are you working with any groups”?

budfox on April 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Looks like Tamerlin may have murdered a few friends on September 11th 2011…

Click Me

Smoothies on April 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Two U.S. officials: Preliminary evidence suggests bombers motivated by religion

All I can say is “no shiite sherlock”.

dentarthurdent on April 23, 2013 at 12:33 PM

The difficult part is (a) detonator and (b) radio control of detonation. Would appear difficult, yes? Apparently not. The info is readily available on the interwebs. Like here. If you can use Google, then read and look at pictures, yes you can create a remote detonator out of toy parts.

Welcome to the 21st century.

SunSword on April 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Yup, so obviously the laws that make it illegal to make a bomb, and the laws that make it illegal to kill and maim lots of people are just not effective – so all we need is some more laws to make those things more illegal and we can solve the problem.

dentarthurdent on April 23, 2013 at 12:37 PM

I’m sure a guy who’s blown people up, shot a cop in cold blood and tried to kill some more in a getaway, would never tell a lie.

IndieDogg on April 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Exactly how would the RUSSIANS have pegged one of the two “lone wolves” operating in America as a terrorist if this is true. Are they doing a better job of monitoring American internet traffic than our own intelligence agencies. Either that or our govt is lying to us – again. We are screwed either way.

LarryinLA on April 23, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Mocking another person from a position of ignorance is never a wise move. Your screen name is ironic considering how myopic you insist on being with regard to this particular issue.

stvnscott on April 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM

It was a joke.

farsighted on April 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Acted alone?? Really??

Where did the MONEY come from?? For the clothes, the cars, the apartments, the GYM and boxing. I guess they just came in from the internet as well.

Michael73501 on April 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I hear the term ‘self radicalized’ all over the news. They can’t understand how the bombers don’t have a direct connection to terrorists, but can do this.

It is imperative to understand it is not ‘radical’ Islam.

It is Islam – the antithesis of western civilization.

TfromV on April 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Acted alone?? Really??

Where did the MONEY come from?? For the clothes, the cars, the apartments, the GYM and boxing. I guess they just came in from the internet as well.

Michael73501 on April 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM

They’ll conveniently come out with information that attacks the internet, and freedom but they won’t tell us who funded these guys. Probably because it was the Sauds or the FBI.

fatlibertarianinokc on April 23, 2013 at 8:46 PM

It’s still too early to say what his motivations were, but I have a hunch he’s a tea partier.

/msm

jhffmn on April 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3