fbpx

Return to the Barbaric

The President’s use of executive power outside and above the bounds of the Constitution is well known at this point. In policies ranging from the railroading of creditors in the auto bailouts, to Obamacare by waiver, eliminating key work provisions in the 1996 welfare reform legislation, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and to the informed suspicion that he will unilaterally legalize 5 to 6 million illegal immigrants, this President has entered a new realm of abuse of power. Resulting from the stress he’s placing on our constitutional order have arisen significant interventions that attempt to underline how and why we have arrived at this new dimension of executive power, even in the case of Congress there is an attempt to reclaim its authority, if only in a pusillanimous manner.

Congress, with its quiver of constitutional arrows, perfectly designed to hobble such discretionary enthusiasms, has chosen to assert itself with a lawsuit (the highest form of politics in our age) alleging that Obama has made them constitutionally irrelevant. But that is a game for two, isn’t it? This suit is a prayer to the Federal courts, made in the hope that, ultimately, the Court will do for Congress what it won’t do for itself, namely, reassert the limits of the Constitution on the executive branch. What exactly the Court would order the President to do and how it would effectuate the outcome are both difficult to identify.

Chris DeMuth has put together a series of lectures and essays that grapple with the inexorable rise of executive power in domestic policy. DeMuth’s arguments here are worth considering in detail, as is his call for a return to a parochial congressional-driven politics.

From Philip Hamburger’s striking new book Is Administrative Law Unlawful? we learn that the rise of administrative power is the revival of something quite old–monarchical prerogative power–which spells the end of our constitutional government. The prevention of such discretionary executive power was precisely what the Founders tried to accomplish with the Constitution’s strictures and in the many state constitutions they drafted and ratified. Hamburger’s work, while obviously not aimed at the current White House occupant, helps us to understand that the present abuse of executive power through and with the administrative state has been generously prepared over many decades. Nothing new here, just the willingness of the president to press to its most logical extent every advantage the regulatory state affords him.

What if the symptoms of disorder, however, are found in even deeper sources that require different thinking? In this president’s willingness to rule by waiver, edict, and order he asserts a private right of rule on behalf of a progressive matrix of race, class, and gender that fundamentally undermines the public commitment of constitutional government. In this, our president is recalling the barbaric exercise of power. What do I mean? Barbaric government is not defined by lack of sophistication, nor by human rights abuse, rather its nature is in the assertion of rule by and for private interests exclusively. A barbarian exercises his reign for his private interests, and is unable to distinguish between public space and its claim on his loyalties and duties and the private realm and its separate claim on his interests. The two mix or co-determine each other. The personal is the political.

The eccentric and unfortunately somewhat forgotten 19th century American thinker Orestes Brownson located western constitutionalism’s initial victory over barbaric political rule in the Greek polis and in the Roman Republic. Athens, he states “introduced the principal of territorial democracy,” and subdivided power “into demes or wards.” The principle demonstrated was the “loyalty of all citizens” to Athens, and not to a particular ruler or ruling group. The Senate body in Rome organized the undifferentiated mass into a body politic that was governed by public rule. Only those heads of households that were “tenants of the sacred territory of the city, which has been surveyed and marked by the god Terminus,” could govern in the Senate. Their power was only public power or political sovereignty. Brownson formulated that the city or state takes the place of the private proprietor, and territorial rights take the place of purely personal rights.

Barbarian in the original sense is unknown, Brownson concluded, but if we look to the Greeks and the Romans, we know that they never applied it to all foreigners. The term was meant as a political category:

to designate a social order in which the state was not developed, and in which the nation was personal, not territorial, and authority was held as a private right, not as a public trust, or in which the domain vests in the chief or tribe, and not in the state; for they never term any others barbarians.

The epitome of barbaric rule was feudalism where the entire order was predicated on private ownership.

The feudal monarch, as far as he governed at all, governed as a proprietor or landholder, not as the representative of the commonwealth. Under feudalism there are estates, but no state. . . . The whole theory of power is, that it is an estate; a private right, not a public trust. It is not without reason, then, that the common sense of civilized nations terms the ages when it prevailed in Western Europe barbarous ages.

American constitutionalism, Brownson argued, with its division of powers vertically and horizontally, was centered on the principle of freedom. To effectuate this principle required a justification for both the authority that was due individual liberty and the rightful loyalty the citizen should give the constitutional order. The legitimacy of this order inhered in the shared enterprise of representative government attached to borders, state and national, which permitted direct accountability of rulers and ruled occurring across multiple layers of government. Due regard for self government would ensure that freedom flourished for individuals and their private forms of association.

Brownson’s principle helps us understand the powerful distinction between a personal right of rule versus a public right of rule or what he calls “territorial rights.” Interestingly, Brownson argued that the rise of majoritarian government in Europe in 1848, the supposed year of liberation, was the reincarnation of barbaric power. Races, ethnicities, and nationalities within Europe had expressed and claimed their control over territory, independently of their actually possessing legitimate authority to create and define the new territory as their own. Solidarity of a pre-political association, in this case, a perceived group identity, in some cases violently trumped the historical evolution of right and law and borders. So we see that even the claim of public right can actually mask a much deeper will that desires to express power for pre-political interests, ones that attach to a group because of race or ethnicity. In different forms, the tribe returns to power with its chief ruling in its name. In short, we have an expression of power that is barbaric, tribal, i.e., private, expressions that cannot be interrogated or disciplined by deliberation.

Where do we stand?

Our President’s fealty is obviously not to the Constitution and its principles that limit power. Where does it rest? We see that his loyalty to the law comes through its ability effectuate the private power interests, the pre-political group rights, call it the 21st century’s version of the friend/enemy distinction. Members of the illiberal literati might reply that these are public ordering principles, not private ones. For example, we are trying to end gender inequality so we must requisition insurance companies and employers to pay for contraceptives and abortions. Thus the charge of political barbarism fails. But the claim of public rule is that it is exercised in the form of a shared enterprise regarding policy subjects that can be rationally debated. Surely, a first requirement in the assertion of an interest is that it be open to deliberation, to “dry political argument.”

But we see that the claims of the progressive matrix that guide this president like none previous are impervious to rational deliberation. These identities resist being the subject of debate. If my sole claim as a public individual is racial or gender identity or being part of a class, then where exactly is there room for compromise? To interrogate these identities, to question them as a basis for law, for rights, is to seemingly deny that the person or group making them has public validity. When that point is reached Congressional power, the branch situated to rule by deliberation, compromise, and shared agreements becomes irrelevant. Instead, we enter Carl Schmitt land or the need for government by executive, government by discretionary enforcement. Our friends are obvious to us, all that remains is “to punish our enemies.”

The question for free men and women, for Americans, is why have we let this come to pass?

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 20, 2014 at 09:56:15 am

Richard:

Very well said - the best description of the Democrat Party's "coalition of coalitions" I've seen in many a year. The Dems shrewdness in assembling and sustaining this merry menagerie cannot, however, mask the damage they have done to our constitutional system by encouraging the Executive to arrogate to itself all legislative power.

Your piece confirms my own conclusion that these folks are currently inaptly named "Progressives" - a more fitting description would be "Regressives" as they allow for the King and the Clerisy to govern all!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 20, 2014 at 10:12:45 am

Valid though all these observations may be, we need to keep in mind that these conditions have arisen entirely **within** the constitutional context of representative government.

These conditions are the result of that form of governance coming to be the representation of particular interests, joined with aggregations of particular interests coming to dominate those representations (possibly reflecting the "virtues" [motivations] of the citizenry?).

The execution of those purposes of representation required the establishment by those representatives of an Administrative State to serve the objectives of those particular interests; and, as more and more such interests sought and obtained representation (and its authority) that Administrative State has expanded to a large embodiment of authority outside the Constitution (but requiring the mechanism of that constitutionally delineated government for its operative effects).

It is in the direction and determinations of that Administrative State that we locate the executive actions which Richard Reinsch observes.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on August 20, 2014 at 10:43:41 am

One other thing -

In considering certain of Richard Reinsch's observations about the actions taken (or attempted) through the Administrative State, we might get a clearer perspective if we examine how and by whom the determinations are made on whom and how to impose the obligations necessary to seek and possibly attain some degree of the objectives of particular interests for which authority has been vested in the Administrative State.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on August 20, 2014 at 10:51:50 am

Ahh!!!! Mr. Wilson must be frolicking in his grave to see these obligations being imposed upon the unwilling / unknowing as well as upon the complicit. A shrewd yet learned "barbarian" was he!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 20, 2014 at 11:20:37 am

In his 1908 book, “Constitutional Government of the United States,” President Wilson said that the presidency "will be as big as and as influential as the man who occupies it." Professor Obama is merely the intellectual son of Professor Wilson. While Richard Reinsch’s observations are interesting, Progressives do not view themselves as Barbarian's in Brownson's and Reinsch’s sense. They believe that the executive is the sole representative of the nation as a whole, rightfully towering over the rabble that is Congress to do the work of the people. They believe checks and balances are mere historical and useless appendages that should be tossed aside so that the administrative state can do its scientifically justified work, i.e., doing what is best for the people whether they realize it or not. This is the nature of the threat to our democracy and disparaging it will not be enough to turn the tide..

read full comment
Image of Ronald Johnson
Ronald Johnson
on August 20, 2014 at 12:46:53 pm

Right you are. We can trace the motivations of which Richard so aptly speaks back to Woody's motivations; they are quite clear from the passage you quote. The Big O is just the latest in a long line of such practictioners - regrettably he has been rather successful due in part to the Dwarfs of Congress, specifically Dopey and Sleepy who seem to have gained ascendancy over the entire disreputable body!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 20, 2014 at 16:30:03 pm

I thought about the national steward model that TR and WW had in mind in their respective presidential tenures, but it seems to me that they were actually trying to achieve national objectives. My sense is that Obama believes himself to embody various identities which cobbled together equal the national good. But that is to say and do something different. Moreover, it is the style of friends and enemies with not intermediate ground that drives his particular rule that is worrisome. I think it fair to say that Obama's actions are not those of FDR and Wilson progressivism, but a new post-modern private identities made public form of politics. Seems a more apt characterization, no?

read full comment
Image of Richard M. Reinsch II
Richard M. Reinsch II
on August 20, 2014 at 17:56:26 pm

Richard:

In that respect you are absolutely right. There is a difference in kind with Obama's machinations AND disposition toward opponents. Yet, one must ask: " Was this not the inevitable consequence of the attempt to achieve those "national goals." Yes, in a real sense TR and WW were not "barbaric" but they may have put the ole' oxcart on that road.

Anyway, loved the piece.

take care
gabe

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 21, 2014 at 08:56:04 am

“I think it fair to say that Obama’s actions are not those of FDR and Wilson progressivism, but a new post-modern private identities made public form of politics.” I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean by the second phrase, but it sounds over-analyzed. He is certainly exercising power in the exact same manner as FDR and WW and were they not self-aggrandizing? How else can a person conduct a policy of executive overreach without having a personal faith that only he/she is correct? Why else would one think it better to “get things done,” damn the process? To understand the progressive movement is to understand the enemy; calling them barbarians doesn’t seem to be very helpful. An interesting piece nonetheless.

read full comment
Image of Ron Johnson
Ron Johnson
on August 21, 2014 at 10:59:03 am

RJ,

At the risk of misstep in trying to interpret another's phraseology, the intent might be more clearly understood by examining differences in the motivations for "self aggrandizement." That might be observed in the forms or nature of satisfaction being sought, the which in turn affect the means employed and the relationships sought (or avoided) for aggrandizement of the "self."

If we state the "post-modern" progressivism as a form of politics comprised of private identities made public, and examine that feature (the pre-eminence of private identities [charisma]) as the nature of the self aggrandizement of the current era , as compared to the expressions of self aggrandizement a prior era, the Reinsch thesis is confirmed.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on August 21, 2014 at 11:06:48 am

Yes, sorry for that, it could've been better stated. We can think of FDR and WW progressivism as hard-edged because the purpose of the reforms was to elevate the nation as a whole by reforming labor conditions, adding pensions, etc. However wrong-headed, and I'm not saying that some of Obama's policies don't fall under this umbrella, he seems to be open to a friend/enemy distinction that is cobbling together tribes and nationalizing their interests, and foisting them upon us all.

read full comment
Image of Richard M. Reinsch II
Richard M. Reinsch II
on August 21, 2014 at 11:40:40 am

This redirects the discussion to his motives, which are unknown, and tactics. I thought the barbarian analogy dealt with the concept of power involved. Barbarians exercise and legitimize power based on personality and personal relationships (tribally if you like), whereas democratic-republics legitimize their power through and are restricted by the rule of law, which is above or perhaps outside the personal. Hence I’m not sure progressives, post-modern or not are barbarians in the sense I understood you to use it. Certainly the President’s tactics are barbaric in nature, so if that was your intent I agree wholeheartedly.

read full comment
Image of Ron Johnson
Ron Johnson
on August 21, 2014 at 12:42:43 pm

RJ,

"This redirects the discussion to his motives, which are *unknown,** and tactics."

Perhaps it is a matter of age and experience of different observers, but those motives are certainly discernible to some, and confirmed by tactics.

Here is an individual determined to establish his "identity" through actions, which he has set forth in various forms over a period of years of political presence. Here we are observing the priority of the motivation "to be somebody" over the motivation "to accomplish something." In such a case all efforts to accomplish something are for the purposes of reinforcing the status of "being somebody." It is exemplified in the terminology of seeking "to be *transformative* " contrasted to seeking transformations for their own sake.

We must remember that the selection, twice, of such an individual, so motivated, by those not disaffected from the democratic process, for this particular office, speaks to the condition of our social order.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.