Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift by Paul Rahe is an important new book for students of history and anyone interested in the direction of modern democratic societies. It would make a fine political theory text for any homeschooler or autodidact. Certainly reading the book along with the original works it surveys would be far more beneficial than any political science class taught by modern politically-correct faculty. Here’s part 2 (of many) of my summary and review of the book. Recall part 1 covered Montesquieu’s thought. These are my personal reflections on Montesquieu’s ideas.
Regarding the tendencies of commercial republics – commerce looks ahead, valuing customers and markets for future transactions over physical possessions on hand. Commerce is more about ‘getting ahead’ than about enjoying what you have already earned. Potential vast wealth is more valuable than present sufficient wealth. Thus, men invest and defer gratification hoping to gain a greater future profit. Empires prior to 18th century England valued land, slaves, gold – a mercantile system in which possessions are stockpiled. Modern commercial republics value the means of production more than the product itself. For such a modern system, a fixed currency such as gold-based money does not work. Since the amount of gold is relatively fixed, as goods increase, the value of that gold which reflects the total value of goods must increase. So activity is discouraged, as gold in a vault will gain value without risking it in a commercial project. Thus, a fixed-currency system does not encourage markets and the creation of new products, making societies economically stagnant. Free enterprise would exist as people must trade for basic goods and services. But speculation and risk which might create new products and services would only serve to drive prices down, as the same amount of fixed-value currency chases more goods. The one who kept his gold while prices halved, would be able to double his lifestyle simply by waiting risk free. Clearly the “smart” money, would do nothing but wait, and if everyone waited, nothing would happen – other than basic goods and services necessary for survival. Not necessarily a bad way of life, but a necessary outcome for a hard money based society.
Now, would a gold-based economy like this necessarily lead to despotism? I think Montesquieu would say that it must. Market and commerce would no longer be the main activity of society, but stockpiling and accumulation. With commercial activity no longer available as an ‘essential principle’, democracies are back to virtue, which Montesquieu found won’t work. Keep this in mind as we work through the book – can we find a third possible ‘essential principle’ (other than virtue or commerce) for an enduring democratic republic? Or must we choose between wild financial speculation with inflationary paper money and tyranny?
Regarding the new found restless drift Montesquieu identified as inquietude: free men always pursue dreams. Yet reality never matches the dream, so men chase on restlessly. Oppressed slaves and subjects can’t dream as they have very limited time and resources. They simply ‘eat and drink’, yet find some happiness without restlessness. So it seems men really must be slaves to something that limits their dreams or remain adrift, chasing the wind. Can we find a worthy master that won’t abuse and oppress, yet provide meaningful work for his subjects – enabling contentment of mind and plenty of goods to enjoy for all? Keep that in mind as well, as we work through the ideas of Rousseau and Tocqueville in the next sections of Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift.