Stephen Williams on Liberal Reform

Editor’s Note: These remarks were delivered at an event entitled “A Remembrance of Judge Stephen F. Williams” held by the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University on October 9, 2020.

Late in his career as a legal scholar and judge, Stephen F. Williams took a deep dive into Russian political history. He learned the language, so he could approach the subject with his customary particularity. He wrote two stupendous books, published in 2006 and 2017, on the doomed efforts of liberal reformers in the 12 years before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917.

Was this yet another of Steve’s exuberant hobbies, like city biking and pets and plant-based cuisine? When a man of his preternatural talents is suddenly snatched away, his friends want to remember him as a regular fellow like ourselves. And Steve’s casual demeanor and devotion to friendship encouraged us to think of him in this way. We all pick up new interests, and many of us became absorbed in the drama of Russian reform in the 1990s, following the Communist collapse. Steve, like other judges, signed up for exchanges with Russian jurists and gave talks there on the rule of law. He attended sessions with Russian reformers at the American Enterprise Institute. When he launched his first Russia book with a lecture at AEI, Steve’s discussant was the great Russian economist, Yegor Gaidar, who had recently spearheaded market reforms as Finance Minister, Vice-Premier, and Acting Prime Minister.

But the Williams Russia Period was not a detour. Steve’s books, whatever their initial motivations, spoke to America as well as to Russia. They were part and parcel of his vocations as a scholar of liberty and a judge overseeing the U.S. administrative state.

Steve’s commitment to private property and competitive markets was not doctrinal or ideological, but rather empirical and humane.

That first book, Liberal Reform in an Illiberal Regime, assesses Prime Minister Petr Stolypin’s agrarian reforms of 1906–1911, which permitted peasants to own and consolidate farmland that had been controlled by local communes. His theme is the problematics of well-meaning reforms handed down from on high in the face of stubborn local traditions. You first notice that Steve’s evaluations read like his judicial opinions—balanced, meticulous, persuasively judged. Then you realize that the author himself is a Stolypin in a robe. Today’s administrative state is an illiberal regime, based on non-representative lawmaking, non-independent adjudication, and impatience with private rights, embedded in a multitude of stubborn agency cultures. Appellate courts are of course much more constrained than Stolypin, who launched his reforms with an outright ukaz. But they are our guardians of constitutionalism and individual rights, insisting on fidelity to the Constitution and representative legislation as the cases and materials permit. Judge Williams’s calling was to open up springs of liberal reform in local regulatory communes and hope for the best.

Steve’s book does not even hint at that analogy, but sometimes it is too good to miss. Before the Stolypin reforms, the communes allocated property in small, ungainly, noncontiguous plots; discouraged transfers among peasants and assembly of larger tracts with natural scale economies; and periodically redistributed some of the plots. That is eerily similar to how the Federal Communications Commission manages the electromagnetic spectrum in 2020—our farmland. Alas, beyond the writ of judges, awaiting an American Stolypin.

Steve’s commitment to private property and competitive markets was not doctrinal or ideological, but rather empirical and humane. He wanted a system where, to a significant extent, “people are able to match their talents and interests with real work.” But he also saw property and markets as essential to liberal democracy, where human energies are deflected from accumulating and flattering power to producing goods and services of value to others. That larger project was the subject of his second book, The Reformer: How One Liberal Fought to Preempt the Russian Revolution.

It is impossible to read Steve’s stirring account without a tear for what was to come in Russia—and another tear for what has come in America.

Vasily Maklakov, a trial lawyer and riveting orator, was a leader of the left-liberal Constitutional Democrats—the Kadets—in the Russian Duma during the fateful years leading to the 1917 revolution. Steve presents Maklakov as a solitary voice for moderation, civil deliberation, and compromise. Russia was an atomized, zero-sum society, without mediating institutions to filter and guide popular opinions and passions. Politics was sheer personal positioning, where policy questions were judged wholly on who was for them and who was opposed. Not only the revolutionaries but the democratic reformers were fixated on the promise of majoritarian state power. Maklakov, virtually alone among the reformers, saw that this was a formula for the suppression of intellectual dissent, of Jews and other minorities, of property owners, of entrepreneurship. What Russia needed was not power but the rule of law and the habits of mind to support it. In Steve’s pièce de résistance, Maklakov pleads that everyone consider the strengths in their opponents’ arguments and the weaknesses in their own. For this he was scorned by the leaders of his own party.

It is impossible to read Steve’s stirring account without a tear for what was to come in Russia—and another tear for what has come in America. Now our politics is dominated by the quest for executive power, policy is subordinate to personality, moderation is scorned, and minorities and dissenters are selectively isolated and restricted. The difference is that we had robust traditions of democratic engagement and compromise but permitted them to atrophy. Let us hope that it is easier to recover lost Maklakovian habits than it is to build them from scratch.

I believe that Steve’s warm bonhomie and collegiality were more than personal charm. They were invitations—gateways into the serious questions of law, politics, and economics that were his life’s work, and illustrations of some of the answers he had found.

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 November 05, 2020 at 10:29:57 am

That which is doomed and that which is quixotic need to be avoided, but at this saddening point the cartography we layout and assess will admit of that territory and the need to navigate near it.

read full comment
Image of Michael Bond
Michael Bond
on November 05, 2020 at 11:29:58 am

Solzhenitsyn points out in "The Gulag Archipelago" that, after the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Constitutional Democratic Party or "Cadets" (and, later, anyone "close to the Cadets") were among the first to be destroyed by the Bolsheviks as they systematically eradicated their political competition. In the Dumas the Cadets were a political class of intellectuals, the "intelligents," ( nomenclature that was to morph into "the intelligentsia") whose members were the victim to their own foolish naivete, clueless idealism, mindless dedication to abstract "progressivism" and, most importantly for our Democratic Party today, their willing embrace of morally-slothful, intellectually- degenerate, violent revolutionaries.

In so doing, in embracing revolutionaries, the Russian "intelligents" of the late 19th century were seemingly impelled by a strange psychological force, a cultural phenomenon which 100 years later in America would infect the elite of the Democratic Party and which author Tom Wolfe would call the political allure of "radical chic." Wolfe wrote a book about it.

This sad history of political intellectuals in Tsarist Russia, the history of the "intelligents," was repeated in the U.S. by the Democratic Party, which became mere "useful idiots" in the 1960's but by 2020 had become the captive of revolutionaries who have destroyed those who first tolerated them, then gave them comfort, then acceded to their ideology.

read full comment
Image of paladin
on November 05, 2020 at 12:25:44 pm

“...but by 2020 had become the captive of revolutionaries who have destroyed those who first tolerated them, then gave them comfort, then acceded to their ideology.”

I cannot help but wonder whether Covid 19 was created as a form of euthanasia, by those who first tolerated, then gave comfort to, and then acceded to the atheistic materialistic overpopulation alarmist globalist, who view the elderly, as well as a multitude of beloved sons and daughters residing in their mother’s womb as a burden and not a Blessing.

hepcidin and ferritin levels in covid 19 site:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


read full comment
Image of Nancy
on November 05, 2020 at 13:47:52 pm


It may again be relevant to quote the Russian revolutionist Sergey Nechayev, regarding the priority of eliminating fellow revolutionaries:

16. When a list of those who are condemned is made, and the order of execution is prepared, no private sense of outrage should be considered, nor is it necessary to pay attention to the hatred provoked by these people among the comrades or the people.

Hatred and the sense of outrage may be partially and temporarily useful insofar as they incite the masses to revolt. It is necessary to be guided only by the relative usefulness of these executions for the sake of revolution. Above all, those who are especially inimical to the revolutionary organization must be destroyed; their violent and sudden deaths will produce the utmost panic in the government, depriving it of its will to action by removing the cleverest and most energetic supporters.

17. The second group comprises those who will be spared for the time being in order that, by a series of monstrous acts, they may drive the people into inevitable revolt.

18. The third category consists of a great many brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor their energy, while enjoying riches, influence, power, and high positions by virtue of their rank. These must be exploited in every possible way; they must be implicated and embroiled in our affairs, their dirty secrets must be ferreted out, and they must be transformed into slaves. Their power, influence, and connections, their wealth and their energy, will form an inexhaustible treasure and a precious help in all our undertakings.

19. The fourth category comprises ambitious office-holders and liberals of various shades of opinion. The revolutionist must pretend to collaborate with them, blindly following them, while at the same time, prying out their secrets until they are completely in his power. They must be so compromised that there is no way out for them, and then they can be used to create disorder in the State.

20. The fifth category consists of those doctrinaires, conspirators, and revolutionists who cut a great figure on paper or in their circles [kruzhki].

They must be constantly driven on to make compromising declarations: as a result, the majority of them will be destroyed, while a minority will become genuine revolutionists.

Keep in mind that this is how he thinks the revolution should treat people who agree with him...

read full comment
Image of z9z99
on November 05, 2020 at 16:49:43 pm

In support of Z9's comment, the following is submitted:

Antifa, during a march (riot) they termed a "march of terror" in response to the defeat of the Communist Mayoral candidate for Portland, Orey-gone (baby, gone) were calling for the "f*cking" of Mayor Ted Wheeler, the very same Mayor Wheeler who coddled these revolutionary icons of boththe p rogressive Left and the media.

This is as it has always been, and always will be. Those elites who posture, preen and adopt the rhetoric, if not the "theology" of the Left, will, in due time, be found wanting of sufficient revolutionary fervor.
This was true (see Tocqueville - Ancien Regime) of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, The Nazi Revolution andn ow the 2nd American Revolutiopn.
Notice that I did not mention the American Revolution - because it did not happen in a manner similar to the Leftist Revolutions I mentioned. (And Yes, Nazism was far more left than Right).

read full comment
Image of gabe
on November 05, 2020 at 07:06:03 am

[…] Source link […]

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.