The end state of liberalism: government by mass demonstrations

Jennifer Roback Morse had an epiphany while following the illegal alien protests in Los Angeles:

It was the audio that did it. Riding in the car, listening to a news report of the “student protests” against the immigration bills, I heard the sounds of crowds chanting, shouting, demanding. For a moment, I thought I was hearing student protesters in France. And that sound alarmed me, and activated me on immigration in a way no economic arguments could do.

I was hearing the sound of governance by street protests and mobs. Get used to it. If the Left has its way, that will be our governing method in the U.S….The issue is, how do we conduct our politics and settle our differences. If the Left has its way, street mobs will be coming to a city near you.

… This is my fear about immigration: the continual importation of people who will be clients of the welfare state and the Democratic party.

While Morse’s vision of a future America of leviathan government and immigrant mobs (what I call the anti-national mega-state) is chilling, she is still operating under the typical conservative illusion that if something bad is happening—in this case open borders—it must come from the left. But how could she believe that, when she sees the likes of GW Bush, Sen. McCain, and many prominent neoconservatives pushing for the amnesty and the guest worker program? It is simply a mental box that most conservatives inhabit. If there is something bad, it must come from the left.

Stephen writes:

I think that your posting “The end state of liberalism: government by mass demonstration” exposes an important false assumption in our “democracy” discourse today.

Liberals celebrate theatrical demonstrations reflexively. The assumption is that it is always healthy for an interest group to express its demands in a public demonstration. This is encouraged on liberal college campuses, for example, where student demonstrators incur no penalty for occupying offices, skipping classes, and the like.

The more uncivil or threatening (or frivolous or offensive) the demonstration becomes, the more it is celebrated as “free speech.” Bush and Rice, at home or abroad, are greeted by malicious demonstrations, and the only response they can make is “I think it’s wonderful that people are expressing their opinions. I disagree with them, but I respect their point of view.” Never mind that some of the demonstrators would happily behead them if they had the chance!

This is the flip side of “The Death of Debate” (March 16). Deciding issues through rational debate based on objective truth is replaced by “respect all voices, but respect the louder voice more.”

It seems to me that public demonstrations are not much of a part of traditional Anglo-American civil discourse (political rallies, yes, parades, yes, but not left-wing-style demonstrations). I personally am loath to think of marching even for a cause I believe in, though I wonder if traditionalists wouldn’t be better off asserting themselves more.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 04, 2006 01:40 AM | Send