Fragile and Morally Questionable

Or; 'That Hideous Weakness'

There is nothing so imperious as feebleness which feels itself supported by force.

-Napoleon Bonaparte

The most important question confronting both political philosophy and practical politics in our age is that of the size of the State. We have an idea that totalitarianism is a bad thing. But we do not appear to have a principled basis on which to stake out some arena of society, the economy, culture, or even family life as being sacrosanct against State intervention. The result is a strange phenomenon which it seems apt to call ‘totalitarian drift’. Inexorably, the State expands its purview, simply because there does not seem to exist a reason why it should not.

It would be natural to ascribe this to the State becoming stronger and possessing of more authority. In fact, though, as I aim here to show, it is really to be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Our leaders have lost authority. And it is because they sense this that they are driven to expand their control over society - to revert to authoritarianism. Our concern, in other words, should not really be the strength of the State. Rather, it should be the fact that those who are supposed to be in a position of authority, lack it - and compensate with operationalised bossiness.

I will shortly seek to explain all of this as a matter of political sociology. First, though, let me demonstrate what exactly is meant by ‘totalitarian drift’ through reference to three recent news stories from the UK, a country in which this subject is becoming particularly pressing. The first of these stories is trivial; the second and third are important; all ought to force us to address the subject of what the State has the authority to do, but in all aspects this matter is, largely, being blithely ignored.