What is meant by statism? Here's a definition from Dictionary.com. I think this captures the essence of the term:
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty
Of course we're talking about nation-state. I've elicited many sneers when I use the word statism, usually followed by a slur against libertarian silliness. Don't I know we live in a dangerous, complex world that requires a powerful state? Most people go directly to the consequences of anarchy, fighting for survival in a dog-eat-dog capitalist hell. When this is the response, I usually end of the conversation. It's useless to start from scratch with someone who hasn't thought deeply about the subject.
Statism is nothing new to the US. From Wilson through FDR, to Nixon/LBJ, onto post-911 Bush, Obama and now Trump, Americans are accustomed to state power and restrictions on individual liberty. One might say Americans are softened to the point the state could become all-powerful without so much as a whimper (well maybe a few protests that die down in months, if not weeks or days). Through the years resistance to statism has kept the US from sinking into the statism afflicting much of Europe, but now we have to worry about a much greater kind of statist power eradicating our freedoms. Because Americans still believe that Chinese and Russian types of tyranny can't take hold in the US, the crisis of individual liberty vs statism hasn't generated a strong resistance movement.
There's political confusion in the US with no clear battle line. I think we're moving slowly to the point of forced clarity. The left believes that statism is fine as long as it's in the hands of the Democratic Party. Yes, there are progressives who think moderate Democrats have been too cozy with capitalism and free markets, but I don't know any Democrat who believes statism itself is a concern. On the right, there's a battle over control of the GOP, but not to limit government and protect a free market from statist intervention. The battle on the right is for the "right" kinds of statist interventions. There's no longer any doubt on the right that statist interventions are necessary and proper, it's just a matter of establishment control or a take-over by the base.
Neither side has yet fully realized every expansion of statist control when their side's in power as the majority party extends to the other side when their side gains control of government. We have no viable resistance to statism except a battered constitution that's stretched, cracked, twisted and in places completely broken. Without a viable resistance to statism, the battle over state power will intensify, attracting more extreme leaders who aren't constrained by the founding principles of limited government and individual liberty. A war to control state power will likely result in greater losses of liberty until one sides completely crosses the line and moves toward total state power. This will be justified as necessary for national security and stability.
Markets can't work if investors and planners can't predict the rules of the game. If markets don't work, people lose jobs, the division between the lower and upper classes widens and political solutions becomes the only solutions. As the market becomes dysfunctional there's more pressure for the controlling party to manage the economy. The rich are blamed for the economy, and government control of industry is the only solution. Centralized planning will increase, and each consequence of central planning demands more central planning. We have no way of knowing what direction a severe global economic crisis will take. An alliance of powerful states could very likely form and enforce global economic solutions. So far, the US has resisted joining an alliance of nations that would sacrifice our sovereignty, but in a global economy, a real global economic crisis might bring about a level of desperation that calls for extreme solutions -- the right time and the right government might see an alliance of powerful nation-state control as the way to the future.
Unless the US can maintain liberty, limited government and sovereignty, we're closer to tyranny than ever before. The irony of political parties battling over government control and more government interventions is all the underlying social, national defense and economic justifications on both sides for a powerful state are rendered absurd as control over the issues are further removed from the people to far-removed, unrepresentative rulers.
Comments