02.23
From where we left off last time, Nock then turns his attention toward the idea of the “recession” or diminution of state power, and whether or not it’s possible. In discussing this, he hits on a topic that’s truly relevant to my ongoing point on this blog. Namely, that there is no point in voting for “Democrats” or “Republicans.” The idea of left and right in politics is meaningless tripe. He puts it this way (know that when he says “recession”, he means the lessening of state control/power. He’s not talking about economic recession.):
4. Political party differentiation is a myth
There is also an impression that if actual recessions do not come about by themselves, they may be brought about by the expedient of voting one party out and another one in. This idea rests upon certain assumptions that experience has shown to be unsound; the first one being that the power of the ballot is what republican political theory makes it out to be, and that therefore the electorate has an effective choice in the matter. It is a matter of open and notorious fact that nothing like this is true.
Our nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the praetorian guards; they meet from time to time, decide what can be “got away with,” and how, and who is to do it; and the electorate votes according to their prescriptions. Under these conditions it is easy to provide the appearance of any desired concession of State power, without the reality; our history shows innumerable instances of
very easy dealing with problems in practical politics much more difficult than that. One may remark that in this connexion also the notoriously baseless assumption that party-designations connote principles, and that party-pledges imply performance. Moreover, underlying these assumptions and all others that faith in “political action” contemplates, is the assumption that the interests of the State and the interests of society are, at least theoretically, identical; whereas in theory they are directly opposed, and this opposition invariably declares itself in practice to the precise extent that
circumstances permit.However, without pursuing these matters further at the moment, it is probably enough to observe here that in the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer- Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself.
One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State ower are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that “reorganization” of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is, in itself, quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power. This course would be strictly historical, and is furthermore to be expected as lying in the nature of things, as it so obviously does.
I know that was a long excerpt, but I thought it was necessary since he packed so much in. He is getting here, to the heart of what I’ve tried to explain before, but have done such a lousy job of. He’s explaining that the espoused differences between the two parties are actually just different ways to obtain the same end: more state power and less social power. I think where people fall for the trick, is in the creative employment of moral language used by the candidates. So, when Mike Huckabee stands up and says that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it’s not that what he says is “meaningless.” It’s that, he’s just not that concerned with actually doing anything about it.
Political footballs are footballs for a reason. Because they stay in play at all times. If somebody takes all the balls and throws them out of the stadium, you can’t play any more. The main concern of politicians is the management and structuring of their own position within the power structure of centralized control. This is what Nock refers to as “reorganization.” And, after that point is settled, the politician moves on to the accumulation of more control and influence inside their now established realm of influence. The morality, or lack thereof, of a certain political football such as abortion, taxes, social services, etc. is no more meaningful to the politician than what breakfast he will eat.
