Self-Evident Truths and the Theory of Thugocracy

It is summertime, and we annually proclaim that we hold certain "truths" to be "self-evident". In America we say it is a "truth" that all people are equal before the law, that they are born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We say that we have formed our government for the purpose of protecting those rights, and if the government should no longer sufficiently serve that end then we have either the right or the duty to alter or abolish it.

I have given some thought to whether the "truths" are "truths", whether they are facts at all, determined that they are certainly not "self-evident" and looked around at what might be closer to the "truth".

What Jefferson called the "truths" are not facts, but operating principles, organizational theories proposed for a new society. While rooted in Enlightenment political philosophy and concepts of "Natural Law" the concept that all people are equal in the law was certainly not "self-evident" either to European monarchists who ruled by divine right, to Asian monarchists who believed they constituted divine right, or in fact to any other developed or developing culture.

As operating principles or organizational theories Jefferson’s ideas have worked pretty well for America for 200 years. I would argue that in America the operating principles are a reasonable if imperfect description of how our country actually works. But if the operating principles are empirical principles and not "self-evident" facts then what other operating principles might we see in the real world, and how would they work?

The Theory of Thugocracy is that an alternative to democracy is a government ruled by thugs. Thugocracies share among some common characteristics.

1. A group of armed men take control of a geographic area. The complexity of the target area, its internal defenses, its area and its population may dictate how many thugs are required to take it over or what level of sophistication is required. For example in some African countries control of the presidential palace, the radio station and the airport may be sufficient for a very small number of thugs to claim control of some countries.

2. Thugs motivated purely by greed, who are in effect land based pirates may be more likely to control simpler countries, Central American plantations or African former colonies. Thugs motivated by ideology or religion may be able to recruit more widely and control larger geographic areas such as Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

3 Thugs generally attain legitimacy in the world community by adopting the rhetoric, forms and symbols of democracy, if not the substance. The head thug is no longer the "king" but is the "president". His cronies and sycophants are elected as a "parliament" which adopts a constitution, amendable in the discretion of the head thug. The symbols vest the thugs with sufficient credentials to support admission to the United Nations which entitles the thugs to receive various forms of international payments.

4. One defining characteristic of a Thugocracy is that the nation is the same as the head thug. Like Louis XIV’s "L’état, c’est moi", in a thugocracy there are no institutions separate from the head thug, and a particular example is that there is no distinction between the national treasury and the head thug’s bank account. The world seemed mostly amused to learn that perhaps 40% of the international aid given to the Palestinians since Oslo had found its way into Yassir Arafat’s personal bank account, and Mrs. Arafat had no intention of giving it up. Likewise, when Saddam Hussein’s sons backed a truck up to the Iraqi Treasury they were just doing what thugs do to the treasury.

5. It may in fact be a self-evident truth that the consolidation of economic power and political power is a characteristic of a Thugocracy. From corporate banana republics in Central America to aid-based economies in Africa and the Palestinian territories to the government-oil based islamofascist regimes, and backwards in time to the fascists, the Thugocracies need to control the economy as a part of controlling the nation.

6. Thugocracies rule by violence and fear of violence. Communist thugs adopt a populist rhetoric, claiming to rule in the name of the people and for their benefit. It is not necessarily elections they fear, although they fear those that could have multiple candidates, and thugs can call elections "bourgeois". What they fear is countervailing power, and the Communist countries share with the Islamist countries and the greed Thugocracies the control of all institutions.

7. If democracies are instituted by people to secure rights, Thugocracies are instituted by thugs to secure power. While the rhetoric varies from Castro to Arafat to Somalia to the Congo the goal of control is constant. Whether cloaked in false elections, based on the commandments of a false God or in some false ideology, the thugs stay in power for its own sake, and the single common thread separating Thugocracies from democracies is the lack of countervailing powers.

Now, if we look around the globe, do we see self-evident truths that governments are instituted by people to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or do we see people controlled by thugs with various justifications for Thugocracy? I fear that we see mostly the latter, usually cloaked in the language of democracy, frequently paraphrasing Jefferson. I think we would be best off recognizing a good thing when we have it.

The Holocaust

The Holocaust retains our attention more than 60 years after it ended. What many regarded as the most civilized nation on earth applied the most modern technology of the day to the destruction of human beings. Genocide on a theoretical and practical scale never before attempted and without the benefit of any lowered moral standard available to Arabs, Rwandans, Sudanese or other third world killers.

I know the facts, figures, dates place and names. I have read Dawidowicz and Goldhagen. Digesting it all, I have little to contribute but two things to remember.

Hitler was elected. No beer hall putsch, no coup, no revolution. Elected in a parliamentary system, a minority to be sure, but elected nonetheless, appointed as Chancellor, reflecting the prevailing wisdom and judgments of the German people. His platform was not a secret, Mein Kampf was in general circulation.
The Germans did not stop killing Jews until the Red Army physically and militarily prevented the killing. By January 1945 Himmler had directed that the death camps be shut down and the records destroyed, and yet Auschwitz and other camps, death marches and atrocities on a massive scale continued until the Russians overtook the retreating Germans. I have had occasion to criticize some historical writing which refers to the killers as the "Nazis". A minuscule percentage were members of the National Socialist party. The correct word is
"Germans".

What lessons do I take from the Holocaust? First, if a political leader espouses genocide I believe that he intends to do what he says. Political power does not moderate the views of the killers, it validates them. Second, societies of hate are perfectly capable of democratically electing the most horrible killers to office and following them through the consequences. How foolish would we be to say it could not happen again?

I have watched and listened to the Iranians and the Palestinians. The rhetoric of genocide is not hidden or subtle. It is clear and immediate, only lacking in the immediate means to the end. The Iranians and the Palestinians simply do not have the weaponry sufficient to wipe Israel off the map. At least not today. Those Palestinian sympathizers who deny the genocidal rhetoric are guilty of selective hearing, or projecting what they wish they would hear. In 2006 the only hope for peace in the Mideast is the hope that the Iranians and the Palestinians do not mean what they say, but there is no reason to believe that they do not mean what they say. On the contrary there is daily evidence that they mean exactly what they say, and have the intention if not the present means to carry it out. They have elected their leaders in free and open elections to carry out the wishes of the people, and the leaders are doing exactly that.

The lessons of the Holocaust are on the news every day.

Little League

I have been inattentive to writing and proffer the usual. Busy. Work. Children. Out of ideas.

All untrue, except "out of ideas" could be related to "never had any ideas".
The real problem is Little League. #1 son and I have just completed our 10th year of coaching the Phillies together, my 19th year of coaching overall including 7 years coaching #1 son before he took to the more cerebral portions of the game, coaching #2 son.

I am a lifer. I have no idea why I coach Little League with both my sons out of that age, or perhaps I have a few reasons, all of which are vaguely embarrassing, so I go to some effort to find them unpersuasive. One is that I enjoy the joint enterprise with #1 son where he is probably smarter than I am, but I can do the grunt work, fill out the papers, send emails to the team and carry the equipment. We can work as equals with no family, danger or money at stake.

We do it this year because we did it last year. Little League is the fabric of the house, the rhythm of the seasons. Debates about the time taken by Little League are part of the deal, and in December we review the coaches’ reports from the minor leagues to discuss the player draft coming up in March. Ah, the draft is exquisite agony.

I love the banter with the boys. After 10 years I have the annual discussions pretty well down, usually starting in mid-season with a discussion, more accurately a monologue, as to whether there have been any new thoughts since Aristotle. In a particularly promising year 2 players have heard of Aristotle, and some years one player is willing to venture that "television" is new since Aristotle. My usual riposte is that television is merely the application of technology with which Aristotle was quite familiar. I have not strictly taken Jacques Barzun’s position that there is nothing new since Aristotle, but I think the concept is worthy of note to 11 and 12 year olds. #1 son is impatient to get on with the practice and thinks it somehow unfair to fire missiles over the heads of the boys. I point out that the impatience of the sons to the wisdom of the fathers is considerably older than Aristotle.

On June 16th the Phillies celebrate Bloomsday. I have a commemorative T-shirt I wear that day, dazzle them with the concept of the 50 page concluding sentence and conclude myself that Molly Bloom was a Phillie, that she wanted to be up with the bases loaded, just to have a chance to hit a home run. Yes, Yes. Who wants to be up with the bases loaded? Think about Molly Bloom. And yes I said yes I will Yes. #1 son is practically apoplectic.

This rain-soaked, rain-delayed, rain-dominated year the Phillies won the championship. For the first time since 1999 when #2 son and his friend Phil led the team as 12 year olds the Phillies had the players to win, and the coaches weren’t able to mess it up. What a year! Glory Hallelujah! Yes, Yes!