THE HOUR of the BEAST a Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE HOUR OF THE BEAST A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of California State University, Ha~vard In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Economics of History By Hichael A. Sullivan June, 1993 THE HOUR OF THE BEAST Bv Michael A. Sullivan Approved: Date: ii PREFACE That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born? W.B. Yeats This thesis will argue that the essential issue facing contemporary society is the conflict between the individual and the state. It will also suggest that our ideals tend toward self-destructive contradiction, when freighted with the self-maximizing tendencies of the state bureaucracy. More specifically, it will propose that our modern conceptions of the "Good," derived as they are from Classical, Christian, and Enlightenment sources, are currently drowning in their own conceits; that our theological and ideological perceptions, rather than promoting the individual sovereignty which has been the fundamental "goal" of our social evolution, are now unnecessarily explicating a reactionary nostalgia for the past and dread of the future. The defining metaphor of the thesis is embodied in the dialectic between the private individual and the tribal collective. Further elucidation will be provided with several oppositions. The ideological iii perspective will be viewed through the contrast of the real, or material, versus the rationalization of the ideal, or moral. Our social interactions will be examined in light of the opposition between the free exchange of goods and ideas, the market, versus the rationalized control of goods and ideas, the State. The political realm will be examined by way of the distinction between individual choice and authoritarian management. I will attempt a modest universal history, suggesting that our essential path has been one of desacralizing our tribal, fundamentally religious, perceptions of the world as we tenuously "progress" toward a more profane individualism. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. COMPLAINT ••••.•••.•••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 II. THE CHRYSALIS .•...•.••...••.•..•...••.•.••.••••.• 15 III. CONCUPISCENCE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 IV. THE CLBRGY ••.•.•••...••...••.••••.••••...•.•..••. 55 V. THE DEATH OF GOD •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 77 VI. CHEERLEADERS, HUCKSTERS, & SNAKE-OIL SALESMEN •••• 94 VII. THE APES OF ZARATHUSTRA •••••••••••••••••••••••• 120 VIII. UTOPIAN MORALIS~1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 151 IX. THE SIXTIES ••••..•..••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••. 175 x. THE CHURCH ••.••••.••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••••••• 196 XI. THE STATE ..••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••..••••• 226 XII. THE WEATHER ••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.•.••••.• 259 XIII. THE FALL .•••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 291 XIV. APOLOGIA .•••••.•.•••.•••.••.••••••••••.•••••••• 304 ENDNOTES •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 311 BIBLIOGRAPHY •••.•••..•••••••••.•••••••••.••••••••••• 322 v I. COMPLAINT The state always has the sole purpose to limit, tame, subordinate the individual--to make him subject to some generality or other. Max Stirner Our interactions with government are simple. We pay taxes, and they spend our money. The very premise of government is based on the fact that we will not voluntarily pay these taxes; we must be coerced in some fashion. As the numerous tax revolts in the United states during the last twenty years confirm, the value we are receiving, in return for our tax dollars, is our primary concern. It is perhaps a bit saddening, certainly sobering, to realize that our choices, at least in the modern nations of the world, have narrowed down to some variation of IIliberalll and "conservative," such as the Democrats and Republicans typify in the United States. The attempt to delineate our political options has not been assisted by the restraint of having to chart a course through this Scylla and Charybdis of institutionalized morality.. It seems that both parties deny their ideals in their practice of the same, while simultaneously abusing the people's intentions, pocket-books, and credulity. 1 2 Ronald Reagan was elected in the 1980's on a typical Republican program: the reduction of government spending combined with a pervasive respect for traditional forms of law and order. The actual consequences of his presidency are a study in irony. The deficits that accumulated during his terms will plague us into the next century. We cannot suggest, however, that he ignored law and order while concentrating on restrained spending. George Schultz's testimony reveals that both Reagan and his vice-president, Bush, were well aware of the extra-legal operation run from the White House, which attempted to circumvent their own publicly stated policy concerning the arms for hostages' trade (not to mention the Contra connection which pushed the deceit even further). George Bush even campaigned in 1992 by attacking his opponent's "character," while simultaneously insisting on the bold lie that he was "not in the loop" of information exchange concerning these events (subsequently exposed by Schultz's revelations). It is sometimes difficult to decide whether our politicians suffer from overweening arrogance, or simple schizophrenia. Their protestations of innocence were reminiscent of the liberal Democrat Alan Cranston's 3 reminiscent of the liberal Democrat Alan Cranston's complete inability to perceive his own transgressions when he protected a failing Savings and Loan from government scrutiny because its president was one of his chief campaign contributors. Reagan's reactions to the controversy, as explained by George Schultz, typify the way in which contemporary politicians practice self-delusion, " •••Ronald Reagan still truly did not believe that what had happened had, in fact, happened. To him the reality was different••• He would go over the "script" of an event, past or present, in his mind, and once that script was mastered, that was the truth--no fact, no argument, no plea for reconsideration could change his mind".1 What the "conservative" Republicans have accomplished for governmental fiscal restraint and the sanctity of law and order, the "liberal" Democrats have achieved for their own sacred cows, justice and equality. Campaigning under cover of our legitimate yearnings for a world less abused by elitist privilege, the Democrats have created a welfare system for the disenfranchised which seems to be purposefully designed to keep them in perpetual bondage. A paternal desire 4 to help has been perverted into a denial of self-empowerment. The explicit message that the poor's problems are society's fault has delivered the implicit advice that one's own abilities to correct the problem are completely inadequate, thus destroying the only base of desire that might eventually transform this "oppressive" reality. In short, if the poor do not correct the problem, no one will. One of the most persistent ironies is that even when one disagrees with the basic platform of either party, one is still disappointed when the actualities delivered are so much worse than the visions promised. We find ourselves actually hoping for a " realll Republican or a IIrealll Democrat. Either one would be preferable to the facsimiles we get today. Bill Clinton, revealing some empathy with the electorate's yearnings, campaigned on the only issue that will result in election--a tax cut--as the Reagan-Bush Republicans had already discovered. Perhaps trying to one-up the deceits of the Republicans, he became the first president in U.S. history to actually break his campaign promises before he was even inaugurated, with the proposed delay of the " middle-class tax-cutII justified by the bold lie that 5 the deficits were worse than he expected. Although the speed of his reversal deserves its place in the record books, it is not significantly different from Reagan's much ballyhooed tax cut, which, when combined with the social security tax increase, actually raised the total government bite for most Americans during the 1980's. In some respects, the Reagan era was an experiment to determine just how much in the way of broken promises and hotly debated irrelevancies the populace will tolerate. We should not be surprised that effective Democrats (the kind that get elected) would utilize the findings, which suggest that, "they'll put up with anything". Their presumption of public idiocy has been confirmed recently by the cynical way in which the Clinton administration duped the American people into supporting its tax program. By appealing to the "fairness" issue, they effectively diverted general resentment towards a tax increase. Considering that the wealthy did enjoy more significant tax relief than the middle-class during the eighties, Clinton's plan is somewhat "fair" in that it raises taxes on the higher brackets more than the lower. But, the "fairness" was supposed to be accomplished by lowering middle-class 6 taxes, not raising the higher brackets. It is almost as if the two parties work in tandem to increase government revenue in the most effective way possible--by taxing the middle-class (both parties know where the money is). Reagan raised the total cost for the average American by increasing social security taxes more than lowering income taxes--and even that was referred to as a tax cut. Clinton, although also elected on the promise of a tax-cut, raised middle-class taxes less than the higher brackets, and justified