Interesting read.  I have a few questions and comments:

1) When was this paper written?

2) Since the topic at hand is in regards to "democracy," it's probably important to note that the U.S. is not a true democracy in the philosophical sense which such minds as Aristotle wrote of.  Therefore, I feel that it's even easier for our current system of government to move towards a totalitarian democracy. 

3) I'm glad that the author touched on the subject of gaining control of educating the young as the first step towards total control of the State.  That concept not only mirrors Nazi Germany, but I believe it also mirrors our current primary and secondary educational systems.  For example, if you were to pick up any American History textbooks used in High School education, upon careful evaluation, there will be inconsistencies, mis-leading information and oftentimes outright false information planted within the text.  Our youth have been force-fed a watered down version of history for decades in an attempt to mold future generations into more "patriotic" citizens who are more apathetic to what our government does.   Unfortunately, such distortion doesn't end in school - it can be seen in museums, on television and in movies as well, now reaching children and adults alike.

4) I'm not sure what the point of questioning the "what if Mother Theresa had been on the throne before Hitler" is about. I recognize the metaphor, but I'm unsure if such a question really incorporates the socio-economic and political climate of the early 1930's Weimar Republic.  I do recognize that the author was specifically pointing to the reality that the average German preferred security and the ability to feed themselves over "freedom," - as was seen evident in Hitler's slow rise to power, but I feel that there were many other events, issues and characteristics which paved the road to the Nazi state - and the feeling of "security" under Hitler's regime is only one of them.

5) In a quasi-democracy such as America, there is a general interest which is represented by our government, and I would argue that there is no political society in which an individual wouldn't be forced to "bend one's knee" for the general interest.  The reality is that government is and always will be the representative of general interest.  That being said, the general interest of society oftentimes will supercede the general interest of an individual. However, if that societal general interest deviates based upon an imbalance in power, revolution will happen, and a new government will form from the ashes.  However, if the balance of power is checked properly, there is still no way in which we can honor every need, desire or want.  There will always be sacrifice - whether it is via taxes, conscription, etc.  That is the price we pay to ensure that we have society.  Anything less could be considered anarchy.

I wish all the time wasted comparing Obama to Hitler would be spent on fighting the local "politics of greed".

So do I, air - it is unfortunate that people who obviously know little about Hitler, Nazi Germany, or Obama seem to make such inane arguments.

Comparing the President to Hitler?  Whoever heard of such a thing.

dril - I think anyone who tries to compare any of our Presidents with Hitler is derranged.  Bush Jr. was by far one of the worst US Presidents, in my opinion, but he was no Hitler.  Actually, Hitler was a much better public speaker, among other major differences which we're all aware of.

Yeah, I remember when Dril and Sioux both posted back-to-back blogs during the campaign comparing Obama to Hitler.  I was completely astounded and disgusted.   I remember Shwaine calling it "Godwin's Theory" or something like that, and that she was so calm and cool about it.  I just remember wishing I had her equanimity about it. 

Now I do, because I have seen somebody do this at least twice a month ever since.  Somebody is ALWAYS comparing some politician to Hitler.  I call it the "Answer "C" on the High School multiple choice history test."  When people look at a politician they immediately revert back to high school and see either Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Hitler, Nixon, or JFK. 

I wonder how Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Hitler, Nixon and Kennedy would feel if they knew they would be trotted out, dusted off, and propped in the corner every time someone mentally writes a high school essay supporting their choice of "A" "B" or "C.   

Excuse me Cat.  I believe you refer to a you tube video I posted showing an actor portraying Hitler portraying Obama.  Big difference.  The hilarity of which was not lost on many of those who you call Friends.  But maybe now that you are basking in the glory of the election victory, the humor of this parody might not be so astounding and disgusting to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watc... 

So what if the only country in the middle east that Obama is hostile towards is the one that's full of Jews.  Coincidence. 

Cat

The rule is:  the first person to reference Hitler,  loses the argument.

Richard, nice to see you again.  :)

That is an interesting read, as always.  It makes me want to recline beneath a tree and solve the world's problems in the company of other thinkers.

My impression is that the author is focusing closely on one possible example of acquisition, preservation, and growth of power: that which be believes is currently underway in the federal government.

It's easy to use as one's object an example that is currently close at hand and making its influence felt in our lives. It is no surprise that egalitarian goals would be the subject of this piece, though the author is careful and thorough enough to acknowledge other ambitions that lead to the pathological growth of power. My feeling is that this piece has been prompted by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress.

But, I will set this inkling aside and comment on the argument itself: power, democracy, and how utopian ambitions can demand ever-increasing power to endeavor to realize them.

Utopia, virtually by definition, is a heavenly existence for everyone within it. Yet for a single social, political, and economic environment to be pleasing to all, as the author rightly points out, a conformity of thought, desires, values, and ideals must first be instilled in most all members of that society. Power must be wielded at a centralized source to shape shared values toward those determined by the powerful, otherwise the "utopia" will only be utopian for those who share those ideals already; for everyone else, it's a regime.

I'm seeing truths in the article about the tendencies of power, of which its objections comprise but one very specific example. In fact, I would challenge the premise that egalitarianism is the unyielding goal of the present administration at all. However, I can touch upon its more general truths by working from bottom upward.

He hasn't stated what the alleged political agenda of the "monolithic media" is, but I can guess - and quite disagree. I notice a different unanimity of political overtone in the media, however, in that whatever the government chooses to do is in our best interest. This was just as true in the Bush administrations as in the Clinton administration, and it was just as true in the Reagan administration, despite his protests that "government was the problem."

Being conservative or liberal doesn't matter. People who self-describe as either are not only welcoming increased regulation of their personal lives, but are becoming more critical of those who question the increase in regulations, permit requirements, licensing requirements; the list goes on.

Conservative or liberal (and I know that these terms oversimplify and equivocate, but let's keep this simple), we are becoming lovers of authority, despite the chronic grumblings of resentment toward lawmakers of all levels from both sides of the aisle. The grumbling does not reflect a dislike of authority for the most part; it reflects anger that authority isn't being used against those whom we wish it would be used.

Replace "elimination of poverty" with "elimination of immorality" in the second to last paragraph, and replace "social justice" with "public decency," and these formerly resented state powers become extremely appealing to those who, at first reflex, emphatically deny that they are statists. And yet, as the author poignantly observes, they often use arguments from pure democracy as their justifications for the growth of state power and devaluation of civil rights.

I agree with the author that civil rights and property rights are not enemies, but are necessary for one another. He writes, "property has the effect of creating an autonomous sphere on which, by mutual consent, neither the state nor society can encroach." Property rights aren't just for the landowner class; most of the personal benefits of property rights apply to renters and lessees for the duration of their paid use of the property.

But here, too, I see respect for property rights deteriorating about equally among self-describing liberals and conservatives. Liberals, generally, are more open in their contempt for property rights, but conservatives are more likely to take a dim view of privacy rights and the freedom to do as you wish in your own home, forgetting that property rights mean little without, as the author observes, privacy rights and personal sovereignty on one's own land.

As I continue to work upward (this seems to be the best way to comment on this piece), I again feel the inkling that the "authority outside itself" that is often needed to constrain power is, by no coincidence, the author's religion. And again, I will set aside that inkling and deal with the proposition.

The idea, itself, that power must itself be contained by even stronger walls and fences to avoid growing all-encompassing and oppressive, is sound. But there is a really devious trap: the gatekeeper of this higher constraining force itself risks becoming a monarchy or oligarchy. Since the author teaches at the Catholic University of America, that monarchy could conceivably be the Pope. Or, like Iran, the state might have to answer to an ultimate ecclesiastical body. Under the guise of "limiting" power, we would vest ultimate power in one man or one small body.

That's one possibility. The other is that the author had Alexis de Tocqueville in mind, seeing "faith traditions" as a source of self-restraint for those in power rather than a greater authority that the state must consult.

But for that to work, there must already exist a consensus of faith traditions, and that these traditions remain stable over time. However, traditions are rarely static, and tend to drift and evolve. To preserve traditions in a specific form, power must be deployed toward their maintenance.

And the assumption that our traditions have curtailed power in the past is also deceptive. Tradition doesn't necessarily imply the lack of abuse of power; it can just as easily imply a familiar and comfortably accepted abuse of power. Abuse of power becomes recognized as such only when enough people look at traditional practices and begin to question and reconsider them. Women have been facing the resistance of tradition and its familiar abuses of power for centuries, and even today, we're still not quite out of it. We're getting there, however.

The American experiment, in my opinion, isn't too far off in its construction and enforcement of unalienable rights that can be ascertained from human nature itself, i.e. natural law. The Constitution reflects pieces of it, big and small. But even the American experiment assumes that its own checks and balances on power would never be poisoned to the point that even these checks would be applied and disregarded selectively, to the benefit of the goals of the powerful.

It looks like we're still about where we began. We've tried several ways to make power answerable to something higher, only to find that that something higher is just another institution of ourselves. Power can still be misused even in the American system, founding documents notwithstanding.

In my opinion, we lost the battle between autonomy and power long, long ago. By evolving from an agrarian life to an industrialized life and later to its present service-oriented economy, we have given up virtually all the powers of self-preservation that Nature placed on the ends of our arms. We have created a society in which others must care for each of us, allow us, forbid us, want us, and need us, and we in turn decide who will benefit from our services, abilities, and consent.  We made selective poverty possible.

We became a statist society when we began allowing others to decide for us who can have food and shelter and when we can have it. Urbanization was the completion of that surrender of autonomy. That is the source of selective poverty, and we have called upon the simplest tool, the state, to try to fix it.