Hail
the Great Leader!
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Imagine
a group of distinguished citizens from Canada, the US, and Mexico,
getting together and drawing up a constitution for North America,
which included a powerful president for whom we would all vote to
lead us into the future for the sake of our liberty and security.
All Hail the Chief.
Such
an idea would receive a huge raspberry from left, right, and center.
It seems crazy and ridiculous. But on what grounds? One person couldn't
possible represent the interests of so many. A government ranging
over such a huge territory would be unworkable. A president of North
America might easily become a despot. Mainly, the very idea of such
an institution seems to violate subsidiarity (better to decentralize
than centralize) and Occam's razor (we've already got a president).
Actually,
most of us would see plainly what was taking place: some wacky people,
well intended or not, were attempting to seize power. It would be
absurd for us to just obey some guy because he claims, like Yertle
the Turtle, to be "the ruler of all that I see." If he managed
to take power, we certainly would not hook our emotions to his words.
He would not be able to "lift our spirits," make us feel "malaise,"
inspire us to dream or dread, or anything else. He would just be
a guy with lots of power – way too much power.
When
he died, we would be sad perhaps, if we liked him, or not sad, perhaps,
if we didn't. In any case, the implausibility of a headline that
read "A Continent Mourns!" would be obvious enough. A continent
cannot mourn; only individuals can. And those who would mourn the
most would be those who had a direct interest in promoting the power
and office that he held, and who otherwise stood to gain from manipulating
his legacy to their own benefit. If the dead continental president
were praised in godlike terms, we would similarly see through the
insanity and ulterior motive.
It
really should be no different with the president of the United States.
Before the constitutional coup of 1787, we had no president, and
the country managed just fine. Our "leaders" were the clergy, property
owners, merchants, moms and dads. For those who loved politics,
there were governors, and there were the Articles
of Confederation that claimed to be perpetual but which everyone
knew was nothing other than a nonbinding treaty among sovereign
units.
A
group of people who had personal, financial, and ideological interests
got together a decade after the colonies seceded from Britain to
create a new central government supposedly restrained by a constitution.
The president, we were told, would be under suspicion, constantly
watched and harassed by other statesmen and the people. So it should
be concerning all men with power: they must rule in fear or they
will rule in despotism.
The
idea of a president worried those who believed in the ideals of
the revolution. They were assured that he could not be a despot.
He would be under the impeachment threat. He couldn't do a thing
without the Senate's advice and consent. The Senate in turn was
to be appointed by the state legislatures, which were the fundamental
governing units in America. For that matter, if the states didn't
like something about the way the union was working out, they could
always leave the union.
So
went the original idea.
All
these years later, we wake to the cultural equivalent of Mao's China
or Lenin's Russia, in which the people are supposedly mourning the
loss of the Great Leader who
"had
faith, not just in his own gifts and his own future, but in
the possibilities of every life. The cheerful spirit that carried
him forward was more than a disposition; it was the optimism
of a faithful soul, who trusted in God's purposes, and knew
those purposes to be right and true."
Not
only that:
"He
was a providential man, who came along just when our nation
and the world most needed him. And believing as he did that
there is a plan at work in each life, he accepted not only the
great duties that came to him, but also the great trials that
came near the end."
Those
quotes happen to be from Cheney, but they might as well be from
1,000 other bubbleheads who are trying to outdo each other in their
worshipful statements about this man. The level of piety goes way
beyond what one normally accords the dead. No, this is not just
an affectionate goodbye. This is a coronation in Heaven – an
apotheosis
– not so much to honor Ronald Reagan as a person, but to elevate
the presidency as an institution and power as a means. So
it is a legitimate time to discuss his legacy, which requires genuine
objectivity.
If,
for example, Reagan doubled the federal budget, he can't be considered
as a man who cut government. If he resisted every peace overture
from the Russian leader for years before finally coming around (though
not fully) at Reykjavik, he shouldn't be called a man who ended
the Cold War but a man who extended it by many years before it was
no longer plausible to do so.
As
for the spiritual cult surrounding Reagan, it is no different from
that which surrounded Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Napoleon, or any forgotten
Egyptian pharaoh.
Before
you get too angry, notice what I wrote: the cult stems from the
same origin (which is different from saying that Reagan is Mao).
What is that origin? The Stockholm syndrome? Mass psychology? False
consciousness? Ideological error? Probably some combination of the
above.
No
doubt the sentences above invite loads of protest email. Consider
before you click whether you are really disputing a point of fact
or whether you are trying to upbraid a heretic against the religion
of our day, which is the worship of the state and its godhead, the
democratically elected president.
June
11, 2004
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail] is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com
and author of Speaking
of Liberty.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|