Where Have All the Achesons Gone?

By Callimachus | Related entries in General Politics, History

In discussing the Electoral College and voting reform, we’ve been seeing various plans in the light of mass, direct, participatory democracy as an inherently good thing. The people and the president in direct power hook-up. The more the better. But where’s the proof we’re better governed today than we were in 1800?

Michael Lind offers one shaft of illumination on the topic. He writes a sober defense of the crucial role of the “mandarin” class in a modern liberal democracy, claiming, “one of the main reasons that the experiment with large-scale democracy has worked is because it was accompanied by the creation of a modern mandarinate.” He defines this as “a meritocratic elite, based in the middle class but not limited to it, provided the natural leadership for a modern society.”

He notes the American Founders’ fears “that universal suffrage would produce ‘mobocracy.’ But the nightmare of mass democracy never fully materialised, in large part because of the political and cultural role of the mandarinate ….”

In constitutional politics, the meritocratic mandarinate would moderate tendencies toward demagogy, plutocracy and special-interest corruption by supplying the leaders of the career services within government and the informal establishment outside of it.

It worked. Mobocracy was averted in universal-suffrage democracies by a version of the Polybian “mixed constitution.” For Polybius, Cicero and many later political thinkers, the ideal constitution was a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The mixed constitution is not to be confused with the separation of powers advocated by Montesquieu and found in the US federal and state constitutions. The purpose of the mixed constitution was to balance social forces, not to separate government functions.

The modern mixed constitution is a blend of democracy and meritocracy. In it, the mandarinateâ€â€?in government and out of itâ€â€?plays the role of the aristocracy in the Polybian system, checking the elective “monarchy” of democratic executives and the majority “tyranny” of democratic legislatures.

As Lind notes, this is an “unofficial system.” The American Founders saw the states, and the Seante chosen by the state legislatures, as the equivalent of the aristocracy. But the Civil War broke that balance entirely. Into the gap, temporarily, flowed the mandarin class.

[The system] has been breaking down for some time, as the elected executive has overpowered the mandarinate as well as the legislature. In parliamentary democracies like Britain, the separation of the roles of head of government and head of state helped to restrain plebiscitary populism for several generations after universal suffrage was adopted, as did the strict rules and conventions on government behaviour guarded by senior civil servants. However, by the late 20th century, as many have observed, prime ministers like Thatcher and Blair were behaving like presidents, while US presidents were behaving like kings. The increasingly powerful mass media, instead of acting as constraints on plebiscitary populism, have tended to act as cheerleaders for it, even while savaging particular governments and political leaders.

… Four sources of authority are invoked to fill the vacuum left by the decline of the modern humanism that legitimated the mandarinate: pro-fessionalism, positivism, populism and religion.

Professionalism is the opposite of mandarinism, in the sense in which I am using the latter term. It was not always so. In the Anglo-American countries, more than in continental Europe, the professions have in the past served as the basis of democratic mandarinism. In the US, for example, the great law firms and investment banks that would allow their members to serve in the government for years on end sometimes compensated for the absence of a high civil service. Nevertheless, over time professionalism and mandarinism have diverged.

While the mandarin is a generalist, the professional is a specialist. The mandarin’s claim to social authority rests on a liberal education, which is assumed to be the best preparation for public and private service. The professional’s claim to authority rests on mastery of a complex body of technical or scientific knowledge. The needs of professional accreditation have tended to make professional education increasingly technocratic. Legal education in the English-speaking world, for example, once consisted chiefly of a gentleman’s liberal education plus Blackstone’s Commentaries. Now a liberal education is at best an optional preliminary to a legal education.

He has some intriguing observations of the contemporary American scene:

To the extent that the mandarin ideal of duty to the public survives in the US, it is found among America’s career public servants in the national security executive: the military, the foreign service and the intelligence agencies (America’s domestic bureaucracy being weak and patronage-ridden). The most damaging opposition to George W Bush and the neoconservative clique has come from soldiers like Anthony Zinni, career civilian experts like Richard Clarke, the former “terrorism tsar” and diplomats like Joseph Wilson, whose wife Valerie Plame was “outed” as a CIA operative by Bush’s chief adviser, Karl Rove, as part of a campaign to punish Wilson for rejecting the president’s claim that Saddam was importing nuclear material from Niger. These and other career public servants have been models of Ciceronian rectitudeâ€â€?a fact that is more than a little troubling, because Cicero was one of the few leaders of Republican Rome who was a civilian. It is not a good sign that in the American republic the officer corps has become the mandarinate by default.

America’s unofficial mandarinate, the northeastern establishment, crumbled in the last quarter of the 20th century. The result is a social experiment in today’s US as audacious, in its own way, as that of Soviet collectivism: an attempt to have a government without a governing elite. The US ship of state veers now in one direction, now the other. From a distance, one might conclude that the captain is a maniac. But a spyglass reveals that there is no captain or crew at all, only rival gangs of technocrats, ideologues, populists and zealots devoted to Jesus Christ or Adam Smith, each boarding the derelict vessel and capturing the wheel briefly before being tossed overboard.


This entry was posted on Thursday, September 29th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Where Have All the Achesons Gone?”

  1. Joshua Says:

    I just finished reading the original article in its entirety. A long read, but very thorough, fascinating and definitely worthwhile. For some time now I’ve had the feeling that American democracy was sailing into uncharted waters, but couldn’t quite place the source of my apprehension. Mr. Lind does so very well. The years ahead look to be very interesting for America and Britain, to say the least.

  2. Callimachus Says:

    Yep.

    “It is not a good sign that in the American republic the officer corps has become the mandarinate by default.”

    When I read that I at once thought of Gen. Honore down in New Orleans. Good man doing a great job, but this is not what the military is for, and the want of a civilian capable of stepping up to that plate is disheartening.

  3. Karl Gallagher Says:

    Personally, I’m happier having the ship of state’s course be the average of the voters’ whims, than having it set by some mandarins who might pick a destination the rest of us don’t want to go to.

  4. kreiz Says:

    Callimachus- you’re expressed the reservation about the career military before. From a historical perspective, I understand this. But as a practical one, militarists seem to be the last haven for the higher calling of the Public Good. On the civilian side, there’s seemingly more concern about career advancement and finances.

  5. Icepick Says:

    kreiz, militarists serving the higher calling of the public good is great when the militarist is named Cincinattus, not so good when the name is Caesar. We’ve ducked the Caesar’s to this point, but for how much longer?

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: