An Elitist Hater Of Democracy

By Cernig

Andy McCarthy at NRO's Corner blog approvingly quotes this bit of nonsense from science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein.

A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.

I mean...wtf? Let's leave aside the thought that the authoritarian Heinlein would undoubtably have included McCarthy, who doesn't produce anything except bloviating, in his definition of "parasites". McCarthy approves of the notion that democracy should only be for an elite, not "the plebs". Why does he hate America, where the notion of all men being equal and equally enfranchised is enshrined in the very fabric of the nation?

So which definition does McCarthy want to use for "the plebs" who should be disenfranchised, leaving only an elite he's surely defining to include himself? And which invaders, exactly, does he expect to enter his New Imperial State? Maybe he could explain.

Comments

[anderson]

"Why does he hate America ...?"

Cernig,

Clearly you don't understand that he doesn't hate America. He loves America as it was first founded, when only white land owners could vote. As with most arch conservatives, McCarthy (could there be a better name for this guy?) wants to return to constitutional originalism in its most literal sense.

[Peter G.]

With regard to McCarthy: they also serve who only stand and bloviate. I must take issue with the perception that Heinlein was authoritarian. Having read everything the man ever wrote, in my youth, I would have to say that Starship Troopers was one of the very few books in which he ever evinced such a strain. Stranger in a Strange Land was practically counter cultural. His prediction in his future history of an American Theocracy was way ahead of his time.Heinlein's condemnation of racism is likewise a common theme in his work. His politics are all over the map if one tracks through his publications but the only really common theme is that of the Exceptional Man. Usually that character is in opposition to some form of authoritarianism. Even in Starship Troopers the citation above was only a justification for limiting the franchise to persons who had served in the armed forces. The idea being that proving you loved your country by means of such service was the sole qualification for citizenship. The book also makes clear that everyone had the right to serve. While this is not strictly my cup of tea I've heard of worse limitations.

[Cernig]

Hi Peter,

If also a huge fan of RAH's having read most of his works - great yarns even if the political subtexts often turn my stomach.

If Heinlein wasn't classicly authoritarian he was intensly paternalistic - what you call the Exceptional man - which ends up amounting to the same thing when applied to government. Trust the wise ones (as defined by RAH), do as they say, follow their fairly broad but strictly enforced rules. That's true even of Stranger and Time Enough For Love.

He wasn't a racist, but he was an social evolutionary determinist - unfortunately a lot of racists fail to spot the nuance there. Evolutionary determinism on a "memetic" or social basis is genetically unbiased, which is to say one has no effect on the other. A meme doesn't care what species it's carrier is. He regarded theocracy as a contra-survival meme. So do a lot of authoritarians - Stalin, for one.

Regards, C

[BJ Bjornson]

I actually quite like Heinlein myself, and like Peter, tend to get defensive when people see authoritarianism in his books. Mind you, I’ve never been big on the overanalyzing of the author’s intentions when they write fictional stories. People take from stories what they want to and interpret the themes through different prisms. All I can say is that a number of his stories, and Starship Troopers is among them, really got the old grey matter ticking over into high gear running through the implications of his societal set-ups. In that at least, it beats the hell out of much of the fiction I’ve read.

[Peter G.]

I'll concede Heinlein's paternalistic streak to Cernig. The character Jubal Harshaw is a case in point. If Heinlein was a little behind the times when it came to his characterizations of women he wasn't as far as many others and frankly he was writing for a largely male audience who were, if my Sci-Fi reading friends are any indication, somewhat intimidated by females in general. Ah the years of teenage angst. Nothing like a little escape literature to give one hope.

[Mark]

The thing is - Heinlein's passage does make an important point which other libertarians (such as myself) are also fond of making: the idea that democracy is inherently the highest form of government is deeply flawed. Too often it can turn into mob rule, with a majority using their sheer numbers to impose obligations on the minority. Looking at it in another context, there is something inherently unjust in the idea that 50% + 1 people can vote to prohibit the remaining 50% - 1 people from possessing certain plants.
I'm not saying that we've yet invented a better form of government than representative democracy; just that it's important to recognize that it still has deep flaws. Ultimately, any system that relies on popular voting needs massive safeguards for individual rights, particularly from the courts; in the case of the US, these are safeguards that in some ways began eroding when FDR announced his infamous court-packing scheme (though, I note, other safeguards were subsequently strengthened beginning in the early to mid 50's).

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Mark,

"there is something inherently unjust in the idea that 50% + 1 people can vote to prohibit the remaining 50% - 1 people from" [Insert issue here].

No there isn't, as long as the minority aren't prevented from voting with their feet, taking themselves off and establishing a new polity where they are the majority.

"A motion to adjourn is always in order", as R.A.H. himself would say.

Of course, that way lies small states with weakly defined non-exclusive borders or consensus government, both of which are antithetical to empire builders. It's how you sort the libertarians from the conservatives.

Regards, C

[Mark]

"No there isn't, as long as the minority aren't prevented from voting with their feet, taking themselves off and establishing a new polity where they are the majority."

This is entirely, 100%, correct. It's also why I have a problem with foes of open borders immigration calling themselves "libertarian." (See Paul, Ron). But so long as absolute freedom of movement is impossible, I see no means by which voters in Alabama have a moral right to tell someone in New Jersey whether they can grow a plant in their backyard (amongst many, many other examples).

I think I've mentioned before that I've been playing around with the idea of how to solve the issue of the modern nation-state for a good year and a half now. I have some pretty strong ideas, but there's still some problems that make it unsatisfactory to me.

The trouble with the concept of "small states with weakly defined non-exclusive borders or consensus government," which I think is otherwise close to an ideal, is that inevitably it results in a state of frequent warfare similar to the problems faced by city-states of yore. There will inevitably be severe resource deficiencies and without some overarching body that both: 1. Guarantees the freedom of human movement; and 2. Guarantees the free exchange of goods, resources, and (importantly) information, you will inevitably find that some city-states become incredibly expansionist. It is this exact problem that is the stumbling block to describing a viable system of government that would maximize individual liberty, however defined (meaning that liberty can have somewhat different meanings for different philosophies).

In some ways, the US Constitution was set up with these two goals in mind...but it was still deeply flawed (partly because of slavery and partly because of a lack of a 14th Amendment at the beginning and, eventually, partly because of an overly deferential judiciary), and eventually failed to prevent an overly powerful and expansionist system of central government.

[Jay]

I loved Stranger in a Strange Land so much, I re-read it thrice. But Isaac Asimov had Heinlein's number, and wasn't shy about what a prick he was. Where is The Foundation when we need it?