Dead Voices Still Speak

DEAD VOICES STILL SPEAK

As I was reading this week about the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, his ideas about the realities of a troubled world and how to respond seemed to set off a strange reverberation in me. It sounded oddly familiar, as if a second voice had joined in and I was hearing two people chanting together. Shortly after setting down my book I turned on the TV news. There was George Bush answering his critics, explaining his recent actions regarding surveillance and port management decisions. It seemed almost as if he was lip-syncing Thomas Hobbes. I immediately thought, how much more effective the President’s defense would be if he were to quote the famous philosopher. I don’t know if Bush has a copy of Hobbes’ book, Leviathan, on his nightstand beside his bed, or if he intuitively has picked up on similar ideas about how to rule a nation .


Anyway, here is Hobbes in a nutshell. See if it doesn’t sound familiar.


When humans (theoretically) enter into a social compact--to prevent chaos--and set up a ruler by way of covenant to run their government, it is not a working arrangement for citizen convenience, with the ruler wearing the people’s leash. Rather it is a promise of citizens to each other that they will obey the majority-chosen ruler. There is no right to criticize, or rebel, or jerk on the ruler’s leash (as John Locke would enjoin). It is a contract between citizens to which the ruler is not a signatory. The benefit to the people is the unity of community under their Leviathan, their Savior, who, with sovereign power handed to him, proceeds to rule without being called to answer.


Remember when Bush won reelection he spoke of his “mandate.” And have you noticed his reluctance to give background for his actions. Bush is very protective of his presidential prerogatives. As he says, he was given the job of protecting the people and intends to take the task seriously. We should trust him and stay out of it. When Congress put the brakes on the Dubai port deal, Bush said, hands off or I will veto you. The best sign of a man’s “inner mind” is when he speaks from instinct without careful thought. But Carl Rove was close by. Did you notice how Rove stepped in quickly and saw to it that the UAE backed down “on their own,” which made Bush’s politically insensitive threat moot.


Thomas Hobbes did not have a staff manager like Rove, so his cynicisms are left hanging on the clothes line, not forgotten. Want to hear more? Hobbes said that any ruler will rule selfishly, of course, and play favorites for those close around him; but what’s new? A popular assembly would do the same, and much more chaotically. At least the sovereign will keep things under control and operate with snappy (secret if necessary?) efficiency. A little despotism is better than social turmoil. Criticism of the ruler breaks up consensus and leads to civil war. An unquestioned ruler prevents the anarchy that unguided democracy would otherwise degenerate into. Don‘t be confused by the synchronization of voices here, I am now giving you Hobbes.
Once the people choose their sovereign, their part is done, except to be loyal to him. Hobbes’ idea of liberty for the people is freedom to move without restriction; that is, freedom to move where there happens to be no restriction--like water that flows nimbly, but not as the crow flies. If there is a boulder, water freely darts around it. Citizens, like water, have liberty where laws don’t interfere. Citizens have rights where the sovereign permits, and the sovereign is free to grant or not, as he alone decides. (Why does the word “veto” flit across my mind?)
Bertrand Russell interestingly frames Hobbes’ notion of a monarch’s freedom from accountability and the foppishness of any objections. When King David had Uriah killed, “he did no injury to Uriah because Uriah was his subject.” David’s injury was to God, who alone trumps the king’s hand. In the temporal world the king does not encounter obstacles, he removes them. On the other hand, the people must respect obstacles. The people are free only to seek out areas where they aren‘t restricted. The implication being that David could never have been a great king if he had to answer to the people. A little misstep here and there can be allowed (collateral damage?).


Back to Hobbes; he had a sharp way of lampooning fuzzy thinking and posed as a stark realist about life. He splashed cold water around and woke people up. But as a classic pessimist, he sat precariously on a thin limb. When he spoke of liberty, equality and rights he was no democrat. When a wake-up call comes (like 9/11) we look for a Leviathan. Fortune had one in place for us, one who unabashedly practices Hobbesianism. Shall we glory in his leadership or ask if there might be other sinister (subtle) threats to America that can’t be handled with bullets. Hobbes so far seems to be right. Our elected assembly leaders have offered no alternative to “force.” And if we had a parliamentary system (with no chief), the government would possibly degenerate into chaos with (the current) Congress in charge.


In his most famous statement, Hobbes characterized human life as “nasty, brutish, and short.” In Iraq we quickly took care of the nastiest brute (we could “find“), and discovered that the short success was deceiving. But if the immediate picture isn’t rosy, look farther off and talk about the ultimate goal of the spread of “democracy.” Bush’s public pronouncements about the chaotic realities of Iraq outline his inner voice. Few people would credit him with the ability to articulate deep flowing intellectual instincts, but he is expert at stirring up fears--which was also Hobbes’ craft-in-trade. Even if Bush’s Yale reading lists did not include Hobbes, his frontier vernacular echoes Hobbes’ cynicism--the way to deal with the “nasty, brutish” violence in Iraq is to stand behind our leader’s strategy and don’t watch the video clips of blasted temples and streets strewn with bodies.


One commentator on Hobbes notes that this cynical philosopher, who had no faith in democracy, despite his play with such words as “compact” (one-way covenant), “equality” (of miserableness) and (unfree) “liberty,” had two unhideable flaws. He had no appreciation for subtleties (his visceral remarks seemed refreshing), and he ignored awkward facts (an aristocratic luxury). It is as if Hobbes has reincarnated as an oilman-turned-politician. You couldn’t ask for a better clone.