For those in America who have longed for a more forceful government to enact positive change, your prayers have been seemingly answered. However, this newfound power comes with a caveat: it also serves the interests of those who envision “the good” quite differently, whether personally or socially.
A government with the capacity to do good inherently possesses the potential to do harm. When it can dictate the terms of trade, it can just as easily disrupt or even prohibit that trade, both nationally and internationally. A government that can financially back educational institutions also holds the power to impose penalties on them for expressing disfavored opinions. A leader capable of declaring emergencies can just as readily fabricate them to justify an expansion of power. Furthermore, a government that mandates ideological conformity—such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)—can just as easily restrict private entities from endorsing or participating in such ideologies. And let’s not overlook the alarming ability of a government to deport non-citizens to grim facilities in El Salvador, which raises unsettling questions about how far this authority might extend to its own citizens.
On this latter point, consider Donald Trump’s comments regarding the deportation of U.S. citizens. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Trump expressed willingness to send American criminals to El Salvador’s notorious prison system, a move deemed unconstitutional by legal experts. His remarks included a chilling suggestion to El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele: “Homegrowns are next,” referring to American offenders, and Bukele’s response—“We’ve got space”—was equally disconcerting.
The framework for limiting government power, as articulated by James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and proponents of Constitutional Political Economy, is designed to prevent the state from morphing into a Leviathan. Friedrich Hayek’s traditionalist approach also emphasizes the necessity of strict limitations on government power. This idea of constraint is fundamental to classical liberalism and libertarian thought. It is high time the many officials—be they congressmen, presidents, or judges—who have overlooked this tradition recognize its profound significance.
Yet, the game is far from over, and there remains a flicker of hope. In these turbulent times, where personal loyalty often supersedes adherence to constitutional principles at the highest levels of government, we may have to rely on the judiciary, independent institutions, and state governments rather than federal politicians or the disengaged electorate. Public sentiment can shift rapidly, as seen in midterm elections that typically favor the opposition party. Many Americans still cherish their individual liberties, numerous public servants exhibit personal integrity, and a free press can act as a counterbalance to governmental propaganda. However, the encroachment of despotism is often insidious; most individuals only recognize they are under the thumb of an elected despot once that individual has firmly established their control. This notion is echoed in my review of Cass Sunstein’s work, where it’s suggested that the warning signs of tyranny can be unrecognized until it is too late.
Tyler Cowen, in the aforementioned Sunstein anthology, posits that a dictatorship is improbable in the United States due to the sheer size and complexity of its federal government. He argues that “big government is useful precisely for (among other reasons) helping to keep government relatively small.” This apparent contradiction, however, may be put to the test as the current situation unfolds in America. We are witnessing whether a government can indeed be commandeered by a bully lacking ideology, respect for established norms, or any scruples about deploying state power. The forthcoming days will reveal whether the remnants of classical-liberal institutions can effectively curtail the rise of Leviathan. It’s worth noting that Anthony de Jasay has argued, contrary to Buchanan and Hayek, that the existence of a limited government might be an unattainable ideal.
******************************
The government you wished for, by ChatGPT (asked to illustrate this specific post)
