home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |

Civil Society The Liberals' "Other" Problem

print view

The Purpose of Bureaucracy

by Christopher Chantrill
November 13, 2009 at 10:54 am


LAST WEEK the House Republicans helpfully pointed out that the Pelosi/ObamaCare bill would create “111 new bureaucracies.” No fair, said a Democrat spokesman. Most of the new bureaucracies would only be “demonstration programs.”

All those bureaucracies recall the old Anglo Saxon drinking song:

There were 111 bureaus sitting on the wall
111 bureaus sitting on the wall
But if one red bureau should accidentally fall
There’d be 112 bureaus sitting on the wall

That’s the thing about bureaucracies. They don’t smash up like bottles. When they fall, or rather fail, according to the implacable Law of Unintended Consequences, politicians and activists just demand another bureaucracy to supervise the first one.

But why does anyone think that a vast bureaucratic health system is going to deliver good health care? Bureaucracies are not instituted among men to provide service. They are implacable intermediaries between a powerful sovereign and a powerless people. They are created to control people. This is obvious if you study the origins of the modern bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy really got its start in western culture when the monarchs of Europe wanted to extract more taxes from their peoples. They needed the money to finance their armies and to copy the extravagant life style of Louis XIV in France. Thus 18th century Prussian kings like Frederick the Great worked overtime to smash the traditional social structures and local power elites so they could extract more taxes.

In those days society was organized locally. In the cities people belonged to guilds and other corporate groups. They owed their loyalty and paid their taxes to their local leaders rather than to kings. To get around the local power centers the kings created tax-collection bureaucracies to identify potential sources of revenue and extract directly from the people the taxes needed for the army and the royal palace.

In the 19th century the Prussians, trying to build up the state in every way that they could, naturally turned to national bureaucratic structures for education and social welfare. Other national elites noticed what was going on, and decided to copy the Prussian bureaucratic model for their own armies, education, and social welfare.

Our liberal friends have done an astonishing job in persuading people that this Prussian-inspired bureaucratic rule is the very essence of modernity and progressive government. So much better for everyone than the evil profits of Wal-Mart, Big Oil, and nasty insurance companies.

Thus the president addressed the House Democrats before he left Washington DC for the weekend on November 7, hours before the House voted 220-215 to pass PelosiCare. He reminded the House Democrats what they stood for, according to Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ).

The president said Democrats have a 70-year history of creating and defending programs like Social Security and Medicare, Andrews said afterward, adding Obama had said the day’s vote "is going to define the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties for decades."

It’s a wonderful thing to imagine a world free from fear and want. What the president fails to admit, and what Democrats seem unable to understand is that their vision is built on force and compulsion. Social Security is a bureaucratic program based on a tax on labor. Medicare is a bureaucratic program also based on a tax on labor. Both programs are going broke because politicians promised more than the taxes on labor could deliver.

And so their vision is no better than the dynastic oppressions and dominations of the absolute monarchs. Louis XIV and the Prussians built bureaucracies so they could winkle individuals out from the protective shells of their traditional communities and then tax them and draft them.

Democrats do the same thing. Their social programs make government large and people small, and that’s the way that Democrats like it. When the government forces you to pay taxes for grandpa’s pension and grandma’s medical care, then the ties that bind parents to their children and children to their parents are frayed. The idea is not too different from the Prussian monarchy: “From the benefits and privileges heaped upon them, from the opportunities they received in the government and the army... the Prussian nobility developed a loyalty to the king and to the state he embodied.”

In what way do our liberal friends, secure in their government sinecures and heaped with privileges, differ from the Prussian nobility? It is true: they do not sport monocles, but they certainly have stiff necks.

The purpose of bureaucracy is to demolish face-to-face social groups, to break instinctive and emotional social ties and obligations, and to subordinate people to the power of the state. It is cruel, it is wasteful, and it is unjust.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.



Responsible Self

[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.

Taking Responsibility

[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050

Civil Society

“Civil Society”—a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches—builds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust

What Liberals Think About Conservatives

[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. “Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists,” she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican

Liberal Coercion

[T]he Liberal, and still more the subspecies Radical... more than any other in these latter days seems under the impression that so long as he has a good end in view he is warranted in exercising over men all the coercion he is able[.]
Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State

Moral Imperatives of Modern Culture

These emerge out of long-standing moral notions of freedom, benevolence, and the affirmation of ordinary life... I have been sketching a schematic map... [of] the moral sources [of these notions]... the original theistic grounding for these standards... a naturalism of disengaged reason, which in our day takes scientistic forms, and a third family of views which finds its sources in Romantic expressivism, or in one of the modernist successor visions.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self

US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008

Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006

Never Trust Experts

No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.
Lord Salisbury, “Letter to Lord Lytton”

Conservatism's Holy Grail

What distinguishes true Conservatism from the rest, and from the Blair project, is the belief in more personal freedom and more market freedom, along with less state intervention... The true Third Way is the Holy Grail of Tory politics today - compassion and community without compulsion.
Minette Marrin, The Daily Telegraph

Class War

In England there were always two sharply opposed middle classes, the academic middle class and the commercial middle class. In the nineteenth century, the academic middle class won the battle for power and status... Then came the triumph of Margaret Thatcher... The academics lost their power and prestige and... have been gloomy ever since.
Freeman Dyson, “The Scientist as Rebel”

presented by Christopher Chantrill

Data Sources  •   •  Contact