“Dependency, not Populism, is the Enemy of Liberalism” Sydney Williams
swtotd.blogspot.com
The word “dependent” derives from the French adjective “pendant,” which means “hanging,” as in “avec les bras pendant” (with arms hanging). We use the word to describe a piece of jewelry that hangs from a chain necklace, a pendant that is dependent on the chain. As well, we cannot forget that the opposite of dependence is independence. Populism is defined as being popular with the people. Its antonym: elitism.
Is democracy in decline? Polity, a widely-used resource in political science, recently determined that only thirty-three countries were fully consolidated democracies. This was a decline of two from a peak in 2006. One of the two was the United States, which was docked, according to a Pew Research report, by two points in 2016 for “an increase in factional competition.” They did not define “factional,” though certainly our politics have become divisive, nor did they point out that “competition” is a positive trait of liberal governments and free market economies. (Belgium was the other country, which saw a decline because of alleged “deepened divisions” between French and Flemish-speaking communities.) Freedom House has also written of a global decline in freedom over the past dozen years, with 113 countries having seen a net decline during that time, versus 62 countries having had a net improvement. Their report, which is available on line, shows that the United States began its decline in 2010 and has continued to do so.
Throughout history, governments have bent toward liberalism, but never in a straight line. Change is the one constant in all aspects of our lives, and it affects our political systems. Democracy requires constant vigilance, as there will always be those whose lust for power exceeds their respect for values embedded in human rights. Both political parties agree that democracy is at risk, if not in decline. But they disagree as to the cause The media, which is aligned with the left, sees decline as a consequence of a rise in what they term the “far” or “radical” right: In Europe, this would include political parties like National Rally in France, Lega Nord in Italy, Golden Dawn in Greece, the Freedom Party in Austria, Brexit in Britain, Fidesz in Hungary, Law and Justice in Poland and Sweden Democrats in Sweden. In the U.S., it is conservatives in general and Donald Trump’s “army of deplorables,” specifically.
In contrast to the left’s infatuation with “right-wing populism,” the right cites deliberate policies of dependency as cause for a decline in democracy. In an essay written immediately after the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2012, Thomas Sowell wrote: “Although the big word is ‘compassion,’ the agenda on the left is dependency.” It is not just government that is at fault; culture has played a role. While it is instinctive and right to keep safe the weak and the helpless, we have become overly-protective as parents. The freedom I had to roam as a child in the late 1940s and early 1950s is quite different from that granted my grandchildren. Colleges and universities protect students against “hurtful” speech, and they provide “safe places” when words become uncomfortable. In speech, we are warned to be more “woke” and to use gender-neutral pronouns. In terms of Islamic terrorists, we have become tolerant of the intolerant. Welfare has been extended beyond the truly needy. This is not to advocate anarchy, or for a culture absent of mutual respect, but we should never forget the fragility of freedom, how difficult it was to gain and how easy it can slip away.
“Populists” refers to those popular with the public, yet has become a term of derision, used by the left to describe those they neither understand nor like. Last weekend, The Wall Street Journal published an article by Hoover Institute senior fellow and Stanford professor Larry Diamond titled “The Global Crisis of Democracy.” Professor Diamond assigned blame for the decline in democracy on a “…wave of populist authoritarians from Hungary to the Philippines.” He included in his list of “populists” Donald Trump, who has “insulted U.S. allies and befriended Vladimir Putin.” Nowhere in his essay was any acknowledgement that Mr. Trump had placed tougher sanctions on Russia than any of his recent predecessors, nor was there was any mention that Mr. Trump had tried to convince our European allies to share a greater percentage of the costs of their own defense – a reasonable request, not an insult.
While independence is wanted, we are all dependent in myriad ways. Young children are dependent on mothers and fathers; the elderly are dependent on care-givers. Husbands and wives are mutually dependent, as are owners, employees and customers of businesses. Students are dependent on teachers and teachers are dependent on the taxes, tuitions and gifts. In the 17th Century, Adam Smith saw dependency in his theory on the division of labor, where the sheep farmer was dependent on the weaver and the weaver dependent on the milliner and the milliner dependent on the merchant. Such dependencies are mutual and beneficial to individuals and society. But when dependency is imposed where no need exists, it is akin to servitude, for it deprives the individual of self-reliance and self-respect. There is pride of accomplishment that comes from work that is missing in dependency on “Big Brother,” a condition clearly (and frighteningly) portrayed in President Obama’s video, “Life of Julia.”[1] It is independence in non-material ways we value most highly – to think, opine, speak, vote, write, assemble and pray – the freedom to live as we choose, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.
As much as dependency has played a role in the decline of freedom, it is also the “deep state” that concerns conservatives – an embedded army of powerful, unelected (and thus unaccountable) bureaucrats. In the U.S., think Lois Lerner and the IRS, and “Spygate” – no longer a conspiracy theory – that is now being exposed by Attorney General William Barr. A more tightly regulated economy requires more lawyers to write legislation and more enforcers to ensure that new laws are obeyed[2]. Because these people make their living within an ever-expanding bureaucracy, it is natural for them to support bigger and more intrusive government, and they do. Ninety-five percent of federal employees’ donations of over $200.00 went to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, according to Federal Election Commission records.
No one wants to see a prosperous society ignore the needs of those unable to care for themselves, but there is a point beyond which compassion foments addiction. Democrats have done much to secure this base. Roughly twenty-two million Americans work in federal, state and local government – fourteen percent of the workforce. Approximately forty-four percent of American workers pay no federal income tax and, according to the Mises Institute, more than half of Americans receive more in transfer payments than they pay in taxes. In short, a growing base of those dependent on government make defending liberties and advocating for smaller government increasingly difficult.
No one wants to end up as H.G. Wells’ Eloi, who lived a life of ease on the Earth’s surface, while the Morlocks worked and lived in darkness underground. For it was the barbaric and ruling Morlocks who harvested and ate the dependent Eloi, who had lost their independence, including the ability for self-defense. In her book All About Love: New Visions 2000, Gloria Jean Watkins (writing as Bell Hooks) wrote on the same theme: “It is this dependency that became, and is, the breeding ground for the abuse of power.” Amen.
[1] See Thought of the Day, “Julia’s World,” May 9, 2012.
[2] According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the total cost of U.S. federal regulation in 2017 was two trillion dollars, roughly $6,100 per person or ten percent of annual GDP.
Comments are closed.
