I think that David Horowitz has also come out against the “Grayout” Davis recall effort - but for a more pragmatic reason (the Republicans need to spend their money and energy in unseating Barbara Boxer, among other things.) I note that Ruddy started to parrot the Rove/Bush nonsense of pandering to the Mexican/Black/Asian vote, but that most of his complaint was addressed to California Republicans’ dire need for re-organization and re-building. I’ve even seen rumors that Beelzebubba (Clinton) himself might consider running for CA governor if Davis is given the boot. Lew Rockwell and Co. are going a bit off the deep end, it seems.

My longstanding contention that the paleocons have a lot in common with the far Left is vindicated yet again. Those of us of a certain age will remember that one of the New Left’s slogans in the late 1960s was “participatory democracy.” Away with intermediate institutions, between The People and the rulers, institutions such as legislatures with varied modes of election, constitutions that limit what majorities can do and that require protracted deliberation before basic changes (amendments) are made! No, let The People formulate policy day by day by mass acclaim. Our Founders called this “mobocracy.”

Of course, those who are campaigning for Davis’s recall don’t say those things or even think them. But that’s the reality underlying their simpleminded belief that if an official badly disappoints the electorate he should be replaced immediately.

Ruddy’s argument was OK, but I think he misused the word “democracy.”

To characterize the recall Gray Davis effort as ‘mobocracy’ is to not understand what this governer is doing to California. Just one example is the recent increase of the car tax. No bill before Congress, no vote, nothing. With a stroke of his pen Davis tripled the tax on every Californian who owns a vehicle, if you own two or three vehicles the tax is increased 6 or 9 times. The tax increase is clearly illegal; unfortunately, it can’t be enjoined by a court. So the state will collect several years of an illegal tax increase and then have to pay it back, just as it did with the illegal ‘Vehicle Smog Impact Fee’ that violated the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.

Reasonable people can dissagree on the recall effort, but it cannot be characterized as mobocracy. It is the only way people, who care about their state, can save California from a man who will drive this state into ruin.

But what about Ruddy’s argument that the people just re-elected Davis a few months ago, they knew what he stood for when they voted for him, he didn’t do anything illegal or unexpected since being re-elected, and that therefore there is something whimsical and mob-like about this recall effort?

In order to uphold the founders’ views, the background conditions must be more less identical. But they aren’t, and as shocking as it may seem we should consider the possibility that some of the views of the founders are functionally obsolete.

Then, the ruling elite was genuinely educated in history, the classics and other such things that conservatives would approve of. Now, most of the ruling class has little or no education in anything resembling liberal arts—most of them are just lawyers. Then, the common man was literally woefully ignorant and uneducated. Now, most people have some semblance of what passes for education today. Then, the rulers considered donating some of their time to government as an undesirable obligation which came with their status, and they discharged it as quickly as they could and returned home. Now, politicians who desire to make their career living in Washington and the state capital are the norm. Then, a legislator represented thousands of people and was well acquainted with many of them personally. Now, a legislator represents millions of people, few of whom he knows personally, and in many cases cares little about except as statistics to be manipulated. Then, government was small and could do little good or harm. Now, government is huge and in the space a few years, a truly incompetent government has the power to bring ruin on those under its rule. Then, the common man could be assured that those ruling in his name did so on his behalf. Now, it is evident that politicians and their unelected bureaucratic friends serve themselves and their pet lobbies.

As to the California election itself, I understand that people were given a choice between Davis and Bill Simon, a candidate so odious and that no one liked to vote for him even if he were a Republican voter. Simon was given the candidacy due to internal Republican politics. Millions would have liked to vote for “none of the above”. They were not given that choice. Many people refused to vote. This was actually a rather Third World type election in an increasingly Third World state.

The founders also spoke of the right to rebel, and faced with a degenerating democracy, recourse to a referendum is hardly an insult to them. I for one would love to see the return of the classic colonial democracy we’re thinking of. But that is certainly not a possibility in California and probably elsewhere as well. Today, it is the common man, the mob if you will, the talk radio listeners who live in a trailer park, which represents the spirit of democracy, republicanism, traditional values and good government in opposition to the corrupt liberal elite.

These are well-made points by Gary. I don’t know enough about the situation in California to have my own opinion on the recall. All I said was that Ruddy’s arguments against it seem reasonable and thoughtful. My purpose was not to debate the recall as such but to reply to Rockwell’s labeling of Ruddy as a neoconservative.

I think Gary has given excellent reasons for opposing the recall effort. I don’t call the supporters of Davis’s recall mobocrats; in fact, if I lived in California I might vote for recall.

I invoked the Founders’ rhetoric because of the theory behind it, and the changed circumstances have not invalidated that theory. Here are two more points to think about:

1) Consider the precedent this recall will set. Henceforth, candidates won’t need to be scrutinized closely before the election, because if the winner turns out to be a crook or incompetent, the people will recall him. Some day, if the replacement is no good, why, he too can be replaced, and so on. And why not; corruption and incompetence are not the only grounds for recall under the theory of participatory democracy; the ultimate ground is simply failure to obey the commands (for this week) of the majority, and a conservative governor will be just as vulnerable as a crook, a radical, or an incompetent.

2) The Founders deliberately structured elections so as to counter the public’s passions (their word), which are fleeting and arousable by demagogues. If a voter knows that he’ll be stuck with his choice for the next four years he’ll have an incentive to think more of the public weal and less of his own immediate interests.

Gary has some interesting ideas. His theme seems to be that times have changed decisively since the founding fathers created America and perhaps the old anti-mobocracy rules are obsolete. This is a theme that might prove useful if developed. So I will help. Traditionalists do not want to end up fighting fire with hot air.

Hypnotic, pervasive, and historically liberal media such as television, radio, and film did not exist in 1776. Low birth rates among European-Americans did not exist. An almost omnipotent high-tech military (which is rapidly making the right to bear arms useless) did not exist. Massive welfare did not exist. Universal voting did not exist. Income taxes did not exist. Title VII and the 1964 Immigration Act did not exist. Massive transfer of wealth from a small group to a large group was not occurring. I suspect much more can be added to this depressing list.

As a paleocon of sorts, I had originally written a long, convoluted reply to Mr. Auster’s assertions here. However, after exerting all that effort, I subsequently came to the realization that I could accomplish pretty much the same effect with just a few words. Those are, that Mr. Auster is, in this instance, pretty much right.

To Mr. Murgos’s list, we should add frequent polling and focus groups. They didn’t exist in 1787 either. They both reflect and encourage the instant-gratification syndrome in politics. So I don’t see that that list, along with my two additions, constitute an argument for even more short-term thinking and the possibility of a series of brief incumbents in official posts.

A somewhat different problem is this: if, as many people think, our Constitutional arrangements are obsolete, they should be changed according to the guidelines in Article V, which specify how amendments are to be added to the Constitution. Since those specifications are in the Constitution, it follows that basic changes in our governing arrangements that are made in other ways are unconstitutional. The Framers knowingly required a protracted process of amendment, to insure that all pros and cons would be debated in all the states before the issues were settled and that most people would accept the final decision. The theory of the “living Constitution” is the theory that makes the Constitution a dead letter; it justifies law-making judges, and federal statutes without any warrant in the Constitution.

But we’ve been on this path toward participatory democracy for a long time. In the early twentieth century there was a popular movement for enactment of Initiative and Referendum amendments to state constitutions, and many of them passed. (The recall clause in the California constitution is a legacy of that movement.) That period also saw the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, making Senators popularly elected, although the Framers had excellent reasons for their original method.

So the process I’m deploring is not wholly the result of technological and demographic changes, although these have been crucial. It’s also been furthered by political movements and changes in our basic law. Inch by inch, for a century we’ve been dismantling those procedures and rules that fostered prudence in our voters and statesmanship in our leaders.

Aside from principle and history, there’s a practical point that conservatives should ponder: Conservative measures in governance ordinarily take more time to implement and show results than do liberal ones. The voters who are impatient for benefits from government will find it easier to say, “Well, he’s had his chance; let’s recall him and put in the other guy who promises quicker results.” The easier we make recall of elected officials, the more likely it is that we’ll be on the losing end of this process in the not-too-distant future.

ruddy may not be a neocon, but he fits much of the profile of a movement conservative.

rockwell is extremely sharp and not prone to being kneejerk. i would like to know why rockwell called ruddy a neocon.

Yeah, but Petros Murgos and Frieda, why dwell on the negatives? We live longer and have Jello, an often over-looked fascinating jiggly foodstuff of apparently zero nutritional value.

There’s a metaphor in that.

The great Austrian Liberal Right-Winger, Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pinned the blame on the French Revolution, which brought us ethnic antagonism, class conflict, godlessness—and something good: the metric system. And for a neat little punch line, he always said, “But you Americans reject that.”

By the way, he was a European who learned from what he termed the great Americans, William Graham Sumner, Orestes Brownson, the Founding Fathers, et al. It usually is presented as running the other way.

As if we have nothing to teach those bathtub- using wine connoisseurs.

“Rockwell is extremely sharp and not prone to being kneejerk. I would like to know why Rockwell called Ruddy a neocon.”

If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. One of them may be wrong.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 27, 2003 12:39 PM
“If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. One of them may be wrong.”

that goes without saying, and since it is given that rockwell is extremely sharp and not prone to being kneejerk, rockwell mush have a reason for calling ruddy a neocon. i would like to know what it is.