Authoritarianism is what you get when STEM people try to do politics.
In truth, their politics is a non-politics or even an anti-politics. People who are convinced that they are in possession of the whole truth, and that that truth is pre-political, tend to have little time and even less patience for politics, especially for the dialogue, disagreement, and give-and-take of democratic politics. They don't concern themselves much with people, beyond lecturing down to them, in contradistinction to the real meaning and content of education. They have no awareness of, let alone respect for, the creative agency of human beings, as workers, as citizens, as social and political beings of various kinds in various roles. They have withdrawn to some Empyrean height from where they can better order and organize the society they have seceded from.
Such people don't think much of questions, certainly not when it comes to politics and the democratic voice. They are impressed with certainty and impressed with doubt and deliberation. They have already done the sums and the only role that others have is to accept their answers without question. They also have a terrible tendency to conflate knowledge – their knowledge – with certainty. They certainly don't like the fact that each person has his and her own inner 'yes' and 'no.' They have the truth and they want others to bow down before it and serve it. That truth is a fundamentally pre-political truth formulated in the realm of objective knowledge. The principle of subjectivity is almost entirely lacking in their 'non-politics.' They have little grasp of politics and ethics, considering the fields much inferior to their areas of expertise in the STEM fields. In this, they fail to grasp the different methods and subject-matter in the fields of practical reason. To put the point bluntly, they 'thingify' human beings and human actions. Hence their constant frustration at the messy creatures that human beings are. Such people want human beings to be robots, perfect calculating machines. You get the impression that they are looking forward to the day when AI takes over.
Sadly, but predictably, a number of environmentalists are starting to show their true 'political' colours. That is, their anti-political colours. These people are every bit the elitist, anti-democratic, 'illuminati' / elect I have long suspected them of being. We are beginning to see a slew of articles calling for the suspension of democracy, liberties, and rights on account of their being a climate emergency. These papers are openly denouncing the failures of liberal democracy and openly calling for the institution of an authoritarian climate regime. As though authoritarianism is the only alternative to liberal democracy! I've criticized 'liberal democracy' thoroughly and consistently in my theoretical work over the years. In that work, I distinguish liberalism, as the right of each person to choose his/her own good, from democracy, as a collective endeavour concerning the governance of common affairs. I see the term 'liberal democracy' as an oxymoron, the one clashing with and contradicting the other. I seek to reject neither liberalism nor democracy but to democratize power and politics in a post-liberal society that preserves and enhances individual rights and liberties on the social terrain. The eco-authoritarians do none of this and instead just dispense with liberal democracy on account of its failures. Be clear, that is not merely the liberal order they reject but also democracy, that is, the principle of self-assumed obligation and the democratic will of the people. And the fate of the people in the eco-authoritarian order? To carry on working at the green coalface and paying taxes, generating the resources to finance the extensive and expensive climate programmes advanced by environmentalists. It's the new serfdom, and we are entirely entitled to resist it.
In January 2022 I wrote a lengthy and detailed take-down of Ross Mittiga's Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change. Although his paper was a mere fourteen pages, I wrote well over two hundred pages in response. I wrote at such length in order to avoid having to ever write a rebuttal of eco-authoritarianism ever again. I'm sick of the sight of it. I thought environmentalists had cured themselves of the authoritarian itch. I also took the opportunity to spell out my own position with respect to 'Rational Freedom' and a Green Republicanism.
There are creative, positive, and democratic alternatives to liberal democracy, certainly to a liberal democracy within the confines of the capital system. I trust neither authoritarian politics nor the regulative and restrictive environmental approach to economic activity. That way seems to promise a political and economic wasteland.
In Affirming Freedom and Democracy, I predicted, wearily, that we can expect to see a drip drip release of these calls for authoritarianism. And here they come.
This article cites Mittiga's call for an eco-authoritarianism: 'Resistance to this way of thinking is palpable: the 20th century taught us bitter lessons about ‘totalitarian’ politics, the story goes, and so we should hold fast to the rule of law, individual rights, and the democratic process. But liberal democratic constitutionalism was designed for a time before it became clear that certain human behaviours—like powering an economy with fossil fuels—have the unintended consequence of destroying the environment (and us along with it). The anti-statism and anti-rationalism that characterizes so much of the ‘radical’ tradition is likewise an anachronism in the era of climate breakdown. It is time for political theory and philosophy of law to catch up with the times. Among other things, this means no longer being afraid of the state of exception in form. Because it will happen regardless of any principled objections to the contrary, we must instead focus on what content it will have.'
Garbage! My objections are not merely principled, they are eminently practical and empirical. I thoroughly call the bluff of those who present themselves as realists against the idealists who oppose them.
The 'state of exception,' the crisis, the emergency, the catastrophe, 'will happen anyway.' Then let it happen. This is a brutal survival of the fittest, then, and I'll have no part in rationalizing 'necessity,' not least when such necessity turns out to be based upon false projections and value preferences. As for the call for 'political theory and philosophy of law to catch up with the times,' I have been reworking political philosophy and the nature of 'the political' my entire life. I had thought that greens and environmentalists big on 'system change' might have paid some attention. They haven't. And now at the eleventh hour they pretend that it is they who are in tune with 'the times' and people like me who are dragging their feet. Nonsense and tommyrot! The call for authoritarianism is as old as the hills, not so much the last resort of the desperate as the first resort of those who have scant regard for politics, people, and democracy – the people who want to get their own way and not have to trouble themselves with engaging with, persuading, and soliciting the support of the great unwashed.
I'll not take being told I am behind the times from people who have paid zero attention to politics, ethics, and people all along and, not surprisingly, have come up short politically.
I will let people know in no uncertain terms that I have been seeking to create and cultivate the intellectual, moral, and social conditions for the transcendence of liberal democracy since ever, proceeding in such a way as to preserve, enhance, and enrich precious liberties and democratic norms as opposed to suppressing them. Ah, but 'climate emergency' and 'necessity' means that we no longer have time and space for such fine principles. I'd take that assertion of necessity far more seriously were it to come from the mouths of people who had had much time for politics, ethics, principles, and citizens in the first place. They never had, which is one good reason why all their ambitious plans and programmes are empty and abstract, mere blueprints awaiting enactment by any enlightened despot who is prepared to sanction them.
These people do politics incredibly badly, for the reason that they are detached from the people, and from those with the structural capacity to act. Hence the resort to authoritarian imposition is not the last resort, but the first – it is the default position of those lacking social roots and democratic connection.
I predicted back in January that Mittiga's paper was flying a kite for authoritarianism and would be the first of many kites to come. And here they come. And, here and there, people deficient in and despairing of politics, especially democratic politics, are falling for it.
Anyhow, I intend to make these my last words on environmentalism. Climate campaigning has become cult-like, overcome by a doomsterism that is full of negative perceptions bias, determined to take everything down with them. I'm not going that way.
I've had the same argument with eco-activists in the UK who have made a fetish of law-breaking. They don't listen, for the very reason they think they know the truth and cannot possibly be wrong. The mildest of criticism is met with contempt, denigration, and abuse, to the effect that anyone who disagrees is a denier. As in heretic and non-believer. This mentality is not merely religious, it is the worst kind of religiosity, utterly intolerant and demanding conformity and compliance. Group think ensures mediocrity in thought and error in practice. These people are now openly calling for authoritarian imposition of climate policies.
The positions are riddled with inconsistency. If the scale of the crisis is as the campaigners allege – people are dying now, millions/billions are going to die – then it is already too late and the calls to action are in vain. They talk as if the world is going to end, but act as if they know fine well it won't. I suspect the incoherence is a deliberate attempt to demoralize people, wear down resistance, and undermine confidence in existing institutions and democratic norms. I've spent the past week checking people who assert that "movements push and people follow." My advice to people who are pushed is to push back, because it is well-nigh certain that those doing the pushing, especially those seeking to spread panic, don't have your best interests at heart.
Such people are setting an appalling example to young people. I'm glad to say I was brought up to respect the law, to argue and reason with others with a view to persuading them, to keep channels open and be open to persuasion by others in turn, and to remember always that you may be wrong. I get the impression that many have no idea how to engage in a work of reconstruction and just want to destabilize, confuse, stir hatreds up, spread anarchy. I call it a naive cynicism. They do seem to think that they are on the side of the angels, but are obsessed by the demons and devils they see everywhere. Neuroticism is no basis for politics. Sadly, children are currently being radicalized and traumatized, their heads filled with the idea that the world is about to end and that they have no future. Politically, they are being taught the pernicious doctrine that the end justifies the means and that the 'objective interest' of the abstract people overrides the expressed will of the flesh and blood members of the people. Like we don't know where such reasoning ends politically!
Not surprisingly, children are recording mental health issues. My own feeling is that things will get worse before they get better, but this age of cult-like emotionalism and activism will implode and there will be a restoration of health and sanity. In the meantime, all you can do is hold the line on reality, human decency and dignity, truth and civic norms.
If you study the phenomenon closely, you will see how members of movements which make a fetish of law-breaking also tend to argue for authoritarian imposition in politics, depriving people of their innate 'yes' and 'no.' We are now seeing a succession of calls to "suspend" liberal democracy in order to deal with climate emergency. 'Necessity' is the tyrants plea. Law breakers and tyrants are one and the same. The good news is that the bulk of "ordinary" people are not on the side of these elites, activists, and vanguards and a return to sanity is possible. And I'll state bluntly that someone's professed tendency to bed-wetting – 'I'm so afraid' – is unpersuasive when it comes to the securing the principles and practices of good government.
In my work I seek to both uproot and transcend liberal democracy in order to avoid the swing between liberalism and collectivism, libertarianism and authoritarianism. These articles do none of this, they merely cite climate necessity in the way that Tony Blair cited terrorism – as a 'state of exception,' 'new times' calling for a 'new politics.' Fine, then let us have a new politics. There is nothing new at all about the authoritarianism being proposed. Indeed, the people arguing the case do so by reference to past wars and emergency powers. I predicted that Ross Mittiga was flying a kite for the eco-authoritarians out there in January and that we can expect a slew of articles arguing along these lines, and here they come. I'll take no lectures on the need to rework political philosophy, seeing as I have been doing precisely that, subjecting liberal democracy to painstaking critique, with a view to retaining all that is of permanent value. These articles are really about the ending of civil liberties and rights as well as democracy - they can't stand people and never could. They have always proceeded at a remove from people.
I learn from the Busk article that Busk is the author of Democracy in spite of the Demos.
Enough. I have been addressing the oxymoron of "liberal democracy" since ever and greens, environmentalists etc have paid zero attention to that work. All that stuff I write on the moral and intellectual virtues, character-construction, modes of conduct, proximal relations, practical reasoning etc. are all about the creating an active, informed demos so that people do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because of reasons and evidence. I'm simplifying greatly here, so shall refer people to the book where I develop this point at length:
I cultivate the inner motive force within the motivational economy of human beings. By way of complete contrast, environmental campaigners just engage in an endless external "education," facts and figures with zero appetitive quality and force.
In Affirming Freedom and Democracy, I predicted that the justifications for Covid lockdown would soon bleed over into demands for Climate lockdown. How predictable. To be fair to them, though, they do seem to possess a high degree of self-awareness when it comes to their electoral unpopularity and democratic deficiency. That's what makes them dangerous. They know they cannot succeed electorally and democratically and so are putting democratic institutions and norms under a relentless and systematic assault. That is the voice and will of the people they are seeking to overthrow and suppress.
It's all so desperately predictable. Mittiga's article will be the first of many. Of course, the fact that eco-authoritarianism has been proposed in the past, and long ago in the past, nails the lie that its justification now is down to living in new times. The call for the suspension / ending of liberal democracy (and with it democracy as such) owing to climate 'exception' is mere rationalisation. The same call was made decades ago. Tyrants always appeal to exceptional circumstances. These people are all fantasising about enlightened despots – by which they understand their kind of people, and not Mao and Pol Pot, the despots who are the norm in politics and history - curtailing liberties and spending people's money without the people having a say in it – working hand in hand with the green corporate form. For all the years I worked on a Green Republicanism recovering "the political" these characters paid no attention, none, for the reason that they were never interested in democratisation and freedom. And now they seek to give lectures on "liberal democracy." I look to radicalize and democratize agency, they seek to end it. And they abuse science in the process, pitching their "arguments" at the extreme in an attempt to normalize the abnormal.
Be careful of the game these people are up to -they are taking themes I have sought to revalue and radicalize in order to justify authoritarian imposition. From the article, "it is time for political theory and philosophy of law to catch up with the times. Among other things, this means no longer being afraid of the state of exception in form." Well what the hell do people think I've been doing whilst they such take outliers in the science to pressure and coerce people and governments.
This is dire. Green politics and green people have been a waste of my time and talent. And they will be a waste of yours too. And a waste of your money, too. And if they get their way, you will have no say in any of it.
Autonomy and authority go hand in hand, as I have argued since the 1990s. No. One. Listens. No. One. Learns. They obsess myopically over climate facts and figures and pay scant attention to agency, motives, stakes, politics, ethics (they naively think this can all be read-off 'nature', a pathetic reheat of the pathetic fallacy). And as soon as they go into politics, they go straight to the crude and the simplistic. Children are being brainwashed into repeating that their future has been stolen like a mantra. Actually, children today are better placed than children of any time and place. As for stolen years, I want my last 30 years back because I have thrown them away on green politics.
I'll end by quoting from my favourite female singer, Francoise Hardy. In her Avis Non Autorises she makes this pertinent point:
"Before hoping to convince someone of the value of a vision, a belief, an idea, it is better to know how to situate it, insofar as the one who lives in the cave or on the ground floor is incapable of imagining the view one has from the sixth floor, even if it is explained to him extensively. The teaching of Krishnamurti, abstract, complex, shifted to the point of missing his objective, is a glaring example." (Francoise Hardy, Avis Non Autorises, 2015 ch 8 Spirituality).
There is precious little point pontificating from a great height, at a distance so remote that people will struggle to hear. Words and meanings have to be rooted in places and people, growing organically from there. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who speak so much about organic growth as against inorganic growth can be so inorganic in their politics and 'education.' Education, from the Latin, means 'drawing out' something innate. Against that, these educators seek to fill empty heads from the outside. I have argued over and again that forming character is far more important than the informing of heads.
In my work I build on the way that Rousseau developed a practical Platonism for a democratic age. Rousseau understood that the truth cannot simply be passively given for it to be understood, but had to be actively sought, assimilated, and received. The 'enlightened' are still pontificating to the unenlightened from a great height, and remain baffled as to why their fundamentally correct views are still not being taken up. There really is no mystery at all here, other than why such supposedly clever people persist in such utterly stupid and demonstrably failing actions. Stuck up on the heights, you miss mediation and agency and hence miss your object. That's when the recourse to surrogates comes.
As Serge Gainsbourg put it to Francoise Hardy:
“À quoi servent de beaux wagons quand on n'a pas de locomotive?”
"What use/good are beautiful wagons when you don't have a locomotive?"
Some people can have all the beauty of objective truth, without understanding that that truth remains passive and inert, locked in ice, unless it is connected with an inner motive power. Just wheels and mills without motive force. Empty and immobile. A frozen truth is one doomed to remain locked in the attic of ideal forms. As much as I argue for the existence of transcendent truths and standards, I emphasise repeatedly that those truths and standards can only be known and lived through incarnation in time and place via practice.
And try any number of articles on my Being and Place website.
Comments