Tyranny and Complicity

Consider four quotes from President Obama:

I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. – April 2013

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works; they’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. – May 2013

I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. – January 2014

That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want. – February 2014

The first was in a speech advocating for more gun control, and was part of a broader message that citizens needn’t fear the government, nor should they think they need to keep and bear arms as a defense against the government. The second was a commencement address at Ohio University where he decried and derided those who distrust the government. The third was in remarks offered at a Cabinet meeting. The last was an off-the-cuff quip regarding the delaying (again) of the ObamaCare employer mandate.

The first two quotes were from prepared speeches. The third remark’s “prep” isn’t obvious. The last was extemporaneous.

When considered in sum, in context, and in the framework of his penchant for executive action (37 unlegislated changes to ObamaCare so far) and his disdain for contrary voices and viewpoints (Obama to GOP, January 2009: I won.), there’s a combination of “trust me, I’m the good guy, I respect the system” and “I’m going to do what my good-guy brain says I should, obstacles notwithstanding.” And, because humans tend to tribalism, and because actual tribalism has been replaced by allegiance to labels like political party affiliation, there are tens of millions of Americans who are very happy with that message and that intent.

Yet history, philosophy and literature are replete with examples of how tyrannies have arisen from roots of noble intent, and are awash with warnings against ceding power to even the most benevolent government.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. – C. S. Lewis

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. – Charles de Montesquieu

A good deal of tyranny goes by the name of protection. – Crystal Eastman

It’s easy to cherry-pick quotations, especially when there are so many and when the fight against tyranny is as old as human history itself, but just because it’s easy to find quotes that speak to this topic doesn’t invalidate them, nor does it imply that there are equally valid, equally numerous quotes and observations in support of unfettered yet benevolent government. The truth behind these quotations is that the imposition of oppression and tyranny upon a people doesn’t occur against their will, but rather with their complicity and active urging.

First the latter, the desire of some to be taken care of, the active ceding of power to government and politicians. There are plenty of folks who want the easy path, who want someone to hand them things, to protect them from harm and from each other, and to catch them when they fall. These people put security ahead of liberty, nanny government ahead of individual choice and self-determination.

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin

The save-us-from-ourselves classes can dismiss this quote by pointing out that “deserve” is an opinion, not a result, but there is another version of the quote that ends with “and will lose both.” That last bit is the important part – it’s the assertion that the security received by surrendering liberty is ephemeral or false.

What security is gained by the foregoing of our basic rights? Limiting speech is great when it’s your side that’s in power, but what happens when the guy you love moves on, or doesn’t do exactly what you hoped he would, or when his party loses power? Plus, it’s a certainty that not everything those in power do will be what you wanted them to do. And, when your right to speak has been curtailed, you have less voice with which to protest. Restricting gun rights may sound wonderful in theory – if no one has guns, then no one will be shot. But, as prohibition of alcohol and drugs and a laundry list of gun restrictions have demonstrated, banning something doesn’t mean that something goes away, or even guarantee the curtailing of its misuse. Limiting the right of assembly with permit requirements, restrictions on where people can assemble and the like accomplishes what? Sure, you might not have to walk through a noisy crowd to get somewhere, or you might be “protected” from hearing a protest against something you support, but when it comes time for you to protest, those restrictions will make it that much harder for you. And, sure, you might be happier if those accused of crimes weren’t as protected from interrogation, or you might be happier if police had greater authority to search undesirables or their homes, but even the most totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are awash in crime and illegal activity, and when there are enough laws on the books to enable the government to find anyone guilty of some wrongdoing, one day it may very well be your turn in the barrel.

Not everyone agrees on which liberties to surrender, either. Some want gun rights restricted, but are loudly opposed to something like “stop and frisk” searches, which might be based on very expansive interpretations of probable cause. Others want gun rights protected, but have no problem with the police stopping and searching anyone who looks suspicious. Some consider the sanctity of their homes inviolate but are happy when the NSA is doing mass data gathering. Some want government to regulate every element of their economic lives, but demand the government not say a peep about their personal lives. When you cede power to government to enable its security machine, you’re bound to witness it doing some things you disagree with.

Silent acquiescence in the face of tyranny is no better than outright agreement. – C.J. Redwine

Next, the former, the complicity and apathy of the populace. This can take the form of “I hate politics, so I don’t bother. They’re not bothering me, so why should I care?” or “all politicians are the same, so why bother?” The former may be rooted in fear of the unknown, disinterest, laziness, ignorance, or simply prioritization of other things. The latter is a falsehood and a cop-out. While there are far more similarities between pols than there are differences, there are real and substantive differences in what politicians do. While a free society necessarily allows individuals to be as disinterested in politics as they wish to be, politics won’t be disinterested in them.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

This quote can be found at the US Holocaust Memorial museum. It is a poeticized version of a speech by German pastor Martin Niemšller, who lamented the apathy and cowardice of German intellectuals during the rise of Nazism. While it’s quick and easy to dismiss any comparison of any society to the rise of Nazism as extreme, improbable or impossible, or to simply and smugly invoke Godwin’s Law and walk away from the argument, the underlying message therein is eternally relevant. Those who would take our liberties in order to expand their power rarely do so whole-hog. They nibble, they divide, they play some against others, they seize opportunities, and they take their time.

While liberty is a natural state and conclusion once someone embraces the basic principle of self-ownership, liberty is not a natural, default condition in society. While our individual rights are indeed inalienable, liberty itself is hard-won, difficult to defend, and rarely given back voluntarily once taken from us. One of the basic premises of our government is the protection of our individual rights and liberties. The Constitution specifies not only certain rights, but recognizes the existence of many others and declares them protected as well. Beyond the Bill of Rights, the Constitution itself is a document that limits what actions can be taken by government, specifically listing the things government is allowed to do, and by implication debarring it from doing anything else.

Yet, when something bad happens or a problem is perceived, many people demand action, and many of those don’t pay much mind to the fact that government has limits on what action it can take. They don’t want the bad thing to happen again, or they want the problem solved. Despite the reality that, oftentimes, the bad thing is something that could not have been absolutely be prevented, or the problem is one that cannot be totally eliminated, merely witnessing action makes people feel better. The TSA’s intrusive security checks at airports haven’t caught any terrorists, but many are perfectly happy having their time (or, more generally, others’ time) wasted and their personal space violated so they can feel that something’s being done to make them safer.

Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny’s the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do. – Bill Willingham

The world is not perfect, nor can it be made so. Liberty doesn’t guarantee perfect outcomes, nor does it solve all problems. Liberty does not prevent bad things from happening, nor does it rid the world of injustice. Yet liberty is what brings us the best results, all things considered. Unfortunately, there are always voices that say “give me the power and I’ll fix the problem or make sure the bad thing never happens again,” so people accede. They surrender liberties. But if the problem doesn’t get fixed, or the bad thing happens again, rarely do those who asked for the power give it up. They ask for more, promising that with a little more power they will succeed in ridding society of Bad Things. And they often get it, and those who willingly accede defend the further granting of power as “they’ll get it right this time.”

When you’ve done something wrong, admit it and be sorry. No one in history has ever choked to death from swallowing his pride. – origin uncertain.

Why do people accede to these further demands? Many people would rather chew on a ball of aluminum foil than admit an error. The greater their commitment to a choice or a decision or a position, the greater their reluctance to change their minds, even when presented with strong evidence and powerful arguments. This makes the reversal of mistakes in the public and political realm very difficult. Neither those in power, even if their motives are truly pure and noble and altruistic, nor those who granted that power, are eager to come out and say “Hey, I was wrong, lets undo what we did.” The powerful may fear losing their power, or their egos may not have room for that sort of concession, or they may think they can get it right the next time around. Those who ceded the power may fear looking foolish, or breaking with their “tribe” and become pariahs, or accepting the possibility that they made a bad choice, or concede that they were conned.

As people grow accustomed to the “new normal” after each concession of power and each loss of liberty, the concept of liberty itself becomes less and less present in their minds. They may consider each subsequent loss of liberty insignificant. It becomes easier for them to shrug off the bad things that happen when that power is turned against society.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. – origin uncertain.

It’s a far easier path to simply let the erosion of liberty remain and get accustomed to it. As those erosions accumulate, it becomes a tougher and tougher fight to regain them. The “easy” path becomes a deep gully. Flat at the bottom, with a gentle downward slope and ever-taller sides, the path to tyranny is the one more and more easily traveled, and detoured from with ever-greater difficulty.

There’s a natural tendency towards tyranny. Few dare use that word, because their complicity in its emergence would be exposed. Yet the steady erosion of rights and liberties can only lead there. Some fantasize about benevolent autocracies, and hold the hubristic belief that they are the ones who can be part of achieving that exalted state. History has yet to produce such a society. History HAS produced countless tyrannies, though, and hundreds of millions dead and billions oppressed stand as a grim attestation that tyranny is Bad. Those tyrannies did not appear covertly overnight, like mushrooms after a heavy rainfall. Instead, they came to be in the bright light of the day, with the encouragement and complicity of the citizenry.

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. – Charles de Montesquieu

[To] compromise with Tyranny is always to be destroyed by it. The sanest and most logical choice lay always in resistance. – Michael Moorcock