The Coming Age of Hobbes

Paul Starobin in the Atlantic Monthly has a tantalizing little article called The Dawn of the Daddy State, where he argues that the coming years will be a debate (and should be) about "getting authoritarianism right." Considering the unique security dangers of the 21st century and the spectre of domestic terror, Americans, Europeans, and others are increasingly embracing and demanding more extreme government controls on individual freedoms. In fact, when the government does do something (like the Patriot Act), the majority not only favors it, it thinks the intrusions do not go far enough.

How interesting, this notion that we are entering an authoritarian age, when the prevailing rhetoric is all about liberal democracy, free markets, and constitutions. Starobin does not necessarily think this is a bad thing, unless we weakly give in to authoritarian abuses and fall into an ideology like fascism. The challenge is not to become Vladimir Putin, a leader he rightly mistrusts. Yet this challenge does not mean inevitable failure. Both order and liberty pose their greatest dangers on the extremes, and the task of the state has always been to efficiently balance both based on the tenor of the times. Some times need more order, other times need more liberty.

He takes Hobbes as his model, itself a minefield of safe ground and danger, but falls back on the Monster of Malmesbury's essential point (looking around with fearful eyes at what the English Civil War had wrought) that liberty depends upon the successful imposition of order. Order liberates, not constrains; it makes life possible, not inauthentic and impossible.

Seems like a tall order to fill in America, where the ruling elites and traditional political culture fears (at least in part) authority. Liberals fear the security state and boost the welfare state; conservatives fear the welfare state and boost the security state. Yet each is a half-hearted embrace, a partial endorsement of authority. One fears government in the bedroom, the other fears government in the wallet. Each is also half-hearted embrace of liberty. One endorses freedom in the bedroom, the other endorses freedom in filling up the wallet. I guess the question is, to follow Starobin's lead, which will get authoritarianism right?

Fascinating question. Discuss.